9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JJ. Shri Sushanth Murthy, Advocate for Appellant Shri A. Prabhakar, JDR for Respondent Per : M.V.Ravindran This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Adjn.), Mumbai by which the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh on the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are, it is the contention of the appellant that M/s. Usha Trading company have imported a consignment contained Sony Brand Button Cells and Battery Cells. The value was misdeclared by the appellant as per the DRI investigation. Various statements were recorded and show-cause notice was issued. Show-cause notice dated 7.7.1999 was issued to the appellant directing him to show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellant is at the lower side. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the records, we find that the show-cause notice dated 7.7.1999 addressed to the current appellant clearly indicates that the authorities are contemplating penal action against the appellant under Sec.114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. The said Section reads as under:- SECTION 114A. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. - Where the duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s., Ushal Trading Company is held an importer. Shri Arun Sharma imported through it. Therefore, liable for action. Shri Dilip Sujan requested for clearance. If he had nothing to do with the goods, heshould not have requested for clearance. Let M/s. Usha Trading Company abandon the goods. He did not allow his benami company to abandon the goods and cleared himself. His omission and action resulted in confiscation of the goods. He is liable for penalty. The goods are also liable for confiscation as there is misdeclaration of value . 10. It can be seen from the reproduced findings that the adjudicating authority has held M/s. Usha Trading Company as the importer. If that be so, the penalty imposed on the current appellant under Sec,112 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
