9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clause (b) of Section 112 acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, keeping, etc., any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. The case would fall within the ambit of clause (a) of Section 112. The importer has not challenged the order of confiscation. In such event, penalty would stand attracted in terms of sub-clause (iii) under clause (b) which states that in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under the Act is higher than the value thereof, the importer is liable for penalty not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees which ever is the greater. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. Based on the recorded contemporaneous prices, the Department proposed to enhance the value to USD 11.06 per kg. The respondent/importer accepted the enhanced value. During the course of inspection, it was found that there was a difference between the gross weight and the net weight. The gross weight, was 1242.14 kg, whereas the net weight was only 600 kg. Thus, there was an excess quantity of 475.64 kg. The importer was directed to explain the difference and they pleaded that the supplier had dispatched excess quantity by mistake. The explanation given by the importer was not accepted. The importer requested the matter to be adjudicated without issuance of show cause notice and opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. The adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal, after considering the case of the respondent/importer, upheld the finding as regards the confiscation of the goads under Section 111(1). As regards the charge of mis-declaration of the value of the goods, the Tribunal pointed out that the enhancement is only on the basis of higher contemporaneous import price and accordingly set aside the penalty and also for the same reasons reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 50,000/-. The revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal setting aside the levy of penalty, has preferred the appeal and the same has been admitted on the above said question of law. 3. We have heard Mr. K. Mohnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. S. Jaikumar, learned counsel appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or in terms of clause (b) of Section 112 acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, keeping, etc., any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. 7. The case on hand would fall within the ambit of clause (a) of Section 112. The importer has not challenged the order of confiscation. In such event, penalty would stand attracted in terms of sub-clause (iii) under clause (b) which states that in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under the Act is higher than the value thereof, the importer is liable for penalty not exceeding the difference be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
