9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to quantity as well as well value. - No intent to defraud the Revenue is forthcoming. There is a mistake in describing the quantity on the part of the staff handling file of Bill of Entry which was accompanied by the documents indicating the correct quantity and value of the consignment. As such no case for import of excess and consequent demand of differential duty on account of malafide is made. In this regard, I agree with the finding of the Commissioner (appeal). - Commissioner agreed with the submissions that the clerk of the appellants CHA made the mistake and wrongly interpreted the quantity involved invoices 33.38 square meter instead of quantity of 33,378 square meter due to misunderstanding of the connotation. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods, which was not done. On that ground, Revenue also taken the ground that though invoice was filed along with Bill of Entry but Commissioner (appeal) failed to appreciate the fact. Invoice also contained the value which should have been correctly declared in the Bill of Entry. 3. Ld. DR reiterated the grounds of appeal taken by the Department and submitted that there has been a mis-declaration on the part of the respondent as despite availability of invoice and packing list, they could not detect the wrong declaration at the time of filing of Bill of Entry. However, he did not dispute the contents of invoice, Bill of Entry and packing list. He referred that under section 46 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is the responsibility of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that Commissioner (appeal) after going through the facts of the case has clearly discussed out in last two paras of his Order and held that since under section 46 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 importer was required to file invoice in support of the declaration and such document being mandatorily available to the assessing officer, no misdeclaration could be imputed as there was no finding on record that appellant did not file the invoice to the assessing officer or that invoice contained misdeclaration relating to quantity as well as well value. He agreed with the submissions that the clerk of the appellants CHA made the mistake and wrongly interpreted the quantity involved invoices 33.38 square meter instead of quantity of 33,378 squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
