9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. The captioned appeals are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Customs) confiscating export consignments under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) and imposing penalty under Section 114 (i). 2. C/177/01 The appellant filed three Shipping Bills for the export of Polyester fabrics in February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdeclaration of weight of the consignment as 4000 kgs as against 2300 kgs and over-invoicing of value as Rs. 27,59,295/- as against the declared value of Rs. 5 lakhs, the Commissioner confiscated an export consignment entered for export under Shipping Bill dated 12-12-2007, under Section 113(d) of the Act and offered an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakh. He also imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted over-invoicing of the export goods with intention to obtain undue DEBP benefit. We do not find that any valid grounds raised in the appeals against the order of confiscation or penalty. We find that in Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v. Suresh Jhunjhunwala [2006 (203) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)] the Apex Court had held that over-valuation of export goods rendered them liable for confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
