9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai by which he ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 6,07,664.57 found in excess under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he allowed the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,80,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on payment of applicable duty. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry No. 2034/24 dt. 18-7-2007 for clearance of "Electronic Components & Connectors". They submitted Invoice No. 1782-B dt. 10-7-2007. The declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 33,152.35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional duty for the excess goods. After this, the Additional Commissioner passed the impugned order as referred to above, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The appellants have contended that no show cause notice was issued in his case for imposing redemption fine and penalty and that the fine and penalty has been imposed ex parte. I do not find merit in this argument of the appellants. Once they waived off the issue of the show cause notice and agreed to pay additional duty for the excess goods, they should have been prepared to face the penal consequences for the misdeclaration of the quantity and the value of the goods. Their request for waiver of show cause notice was not conditional inasmuch as they did not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82-B-R dtd. 30-7-2007 was forwarded along with the said letter. Had there been a genuine error on the part of the forwarding agent, the date of invoice No. 1782-B-R would have been prior to the date of dispatch or date of bill of entry. But the invoice No. 1782-B-R is dt. 30-7-2007 which means that the impugned invoice is issued after 20 days after the filing of bill of entry. It is obvious that this invoice is fabricated to avoid legal and penal action. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the order in original. The same is upheld and the appeal is rejected." I fully agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) as referred to above and reject the appellants' contention. 8. It is the further submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together different context and situation relating to Central Excise matters, cannot be applied to a Customs case, where charge of misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods stands established against the appellants, who have filed the Bill of Entry and by their acts of omission and commission, the appellants have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and rendered themselves liable to penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9.1 Further it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Trading Corporation and others v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta and others [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1467 (S.C.)] in para 7 has held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
