9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 8185 dated 10-12-2003 of M/s. Hisyan Trading Est., Dubai enclosed to the said Bill of Entry. The said value was not accepted by the Customs and the same was revised to Rs. 14,33,993/- and assessed to duty of Rs. 5,62,125/-. The importer accepted the enhanced assessable value and accordingly paid the duty in the State Bank of India, ICD, Bangalore on 25-2-04. In the mean time the DRI officers arrived on the spot and recovered the said Bill of Entry from Shri. A.D. Dhruv Kumar of M/s. Asia Pacific Logistics, Bangalore. Examination revealed that the goods were dry batteries bearing markings as Royal Brand AA R6 UM/3-1.5V. No Country of origin was mentioned. The DRI Officers suspected that the importer has misdeclared the country of origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the batteries was misdeclared, (e) The declared value in the invoice enclosed to BE was manipulated, (f) Shri. Dhruva Kumar, Shri. Sajjad Kola and Shri. Nooruddin had the knowledge of the consignment being liable to anti dumping duty if correct country of origin was declared, (g) The importer in his statement dated 22-3-04 admitted that be had lent the name of his firm and IEC certificate at the instance of a Dubai based person, (d) Consequent to the investigations conducted by the lower authorities, show cause notice dated 23-6-2004 was issued to the various parties, one of them being the current appellant before us. The said show cause notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority against the main party and the current ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, for which proposition he relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) = 2000(140) RLT 131 (SC)] and in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand would submit that CHA was one of the persons who was instrumental in bringing to the notice of customs authorities as regards the irregularities. It is his submission that the letters written by the importer were generated on the letter head in the CHA s computer. It is also his submission that the CHA clearly was aware that importer s signature on the bill of entry was put by one of the person, who was actually not an authorized person. It is his submission that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards how the current appellant as to how the appellant has allowed themselves to be a party to fraud and had committed to the fraud by coming together with other persons. As regards the preparation of false documents, we find that the consignments were cleared by the authorities on the production of documents along with bills of entries. We agree with the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel that the duty of the CHA ends the moment the bill of entry is assessed and goods are cleared on discharge of customs duty, as assessed. As regards the preparation of the letter head of the importer in the CHA s premises, that itself cannot be considered as a ground for visiting the appellant with penalty under the provisions of Section 112(a) inasmuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
