9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Shri M.L.Gupta, Managing Director - Therefore, the penalty in respect of Managing Director is reduced to Rs.5 lakhs otherwise the appeals are dismissed - C/262-263/2006 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2011 - Mr. S.S.Kang, Mr.M.Veeraiyan, JJ. Present for the Appellant: Shri L.P.Asthana, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri K.K.Jaiswal, DR PER: S.S.KANG The appellants filed these appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner whereby the demand of differential duty of Rs.1,25,15,520/- was confirmed and penalties were imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 on the firm as well as on the Managing Director under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts brief of the case are that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent with the case of the Revenue. 4. In respect of export declaration filed by the exporter of Hong Kong and Russia, the contention is that there is considerable gap in the date of export declaration and the date of import. No such incriminating document was found at the time of search of the premises which shows that the appellant misdeclared the value of goods. It is also submitted that the original export declarations were not obtained and only the copies of such export declarations were obtained which relied upon by the customs authorities. It is also submitted that some enquiries were made by Trade Licensing Investigation Bureau of Hong Kong and were forwarded to High Commission of India. No statement of the enquiry officer has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exports were made at higher value. The contention of the Revenue is that as the Revenue arrived at the transaction value after taking into consideration the actual amount received by the exporter of the goods from the appellants and duty is demanded on such transaction value. Hence, the impugned order is rightly passed. 7. We find that in this case the transaction value declared by the appellants in respect of import of goods was rejected. The basis of rejection is the enquiries conducted from Hong Kong and Russia. The Revenue obtained the price declaration and invoices filed by the exporters through official channels which shows that the appellants have undervalued the goods with intent to evade payment of customs duty. The Indian Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Russia and obtained invoices and export declarations to show that the actual price of the goods imported by the appellants and the declarations were procured through official channels. The investigation at Hong Kong also revealed that the exporter was receiving the understated value in cash. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the goods have been confiscated and penalty of equal amount was imposed. 9. In respect of penalty imposed on the Managing Director of firm and equal penalty imposed on the firm, we find that the penalty of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs) will meet ends of justice on Shri M.L.Gupta, Managing Director. Therefore, the penalty in respect of Managing Director is reduced to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
