2014 (3) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ny amount over and above the transaction value. Therefore, although there is an excess quantity of the goods but transaction value is not affected, therefore that transaction value is accepted. Accordingly question of demand of differential duty does not arise. Further, we find that as quantity of goods have been misdeclared by the respondents, therefore goods are liable for confiscation. As in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents imported Malaysian Round Logs and filed bill of entry on 21-4-2005. On verification of the goods it was found that there was excess quantity of goods around 288CBM. Therefore the goods were seized and issued show cause notice to the respondents. Adjudication took place. The learned Commissioner observed that as respondent has not paid over a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... excess quantity of the goods but transaction value is not affected, therefore that transaction value is accepted. Accordingly question of demand of differential duty does not arise. Further, we find that as quantity of goods have been misdeclared by the respondents, therefore goods are liable for confiscation. As in the impugned order the learned Commissioner did not confiscate the goods, we hold .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X