9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and V.G.A. Cards' from Malaysia and filed a Bill of Entry on 27-10-1999 for clearance of the goods. The declared value of the goods was not accepted by the Customs authorities. However the assessee paid duty only on the basis of the declared value. They found that the goods were not the same as they had ordered for and, therefore, they rejected the consignment. Nevertheless, proceedings were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivakumar, against the decision of the original authority was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Hence the present appeals by M/s. Pro Video Services, Shri R. Sivakumar and Shri R. Krishnakumar. 2. It appears from the records that, against the order of the Additional Commissioner, only one appeal was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was by Shri R. Sivakumar, Manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, no such notice was issued to the assessee. We have heard learned SDR also on this point. After a perusal of the penal provision, we find that the liability to pay penalty equal to duty under this provision of law could be enforced against a person where there is a demand, on him of, such duty as determined under sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Admittedly, in this case no show-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings contained in the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the confiscation of the goods is not under challenge. The goods were confiscated under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. Clause (d) makes prohibited goods, when imported into India contrary to any prohibition, liable for confiscation. Clause (m) makes any imported goods liable for confiscation where it doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
