9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and mis-declaration of the importer and exporter. In respect of this consignment also, there was certain signs which created suspicion. The Bill of Lading did not have complete description of all the goods and as a result, the Import General Manifest (IGM) also did not contain the complete description of goods imported. The boxes in which the goods were exported did not have the importer’s name nor it have the correct description of the product. The importers have neither filed Bill of Entry nor claimed the goods and have practically abandoned the goods. It is seen that while there is a good reason to suspect the intention of the appellant, there is no evidence that the goods would have been mis-declared in the Bills of Entry. Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the boxes contained following description: - Import Name Address: M/s Agarwal Bros. Trades P. Ltd. E-134, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 110027 IEC Code: 0500005125 Commodity, Inkjet Paper Packing: Per Box of 120 pkts. MRP: 3000/- per box of 120 pkts. Date of Packing: March, 2012 Not intended for Retail Sale The examination was conducted in presence of Mr. M.L. Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Agarwal Photo Sales. On examination of the purchase and sale contract dated 2.4.2012, it was found that there was no date on the signature of both the parties. It was also noticed that the contract was between M/s Agarwal Photo Sales and the appellant, but the goods imported bore the sticker bearing the name of M/s Aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also imposed on Shri M.L. Gupta. The demand was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that it was a simple case where the importer had refused to pay certain advance payment against the supply of goods and therefore, refused to accept the contract and filed Bill of Entry. Learned Counsel argued that allegation in the show-cause notice that with regard to mis-declaration of value as well as mis-declaration of consignment are mis-placed. He argued that the goods were described as Blank Video Cassette of various brands and Video Camera in the packing list as well as in the invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival submission. We find that the entire case has been made on account of earlier mis-conduct and mis-declaration of the importer and exporter. In respect of this consignment also, there was certain signs which created suspicion. The Bill of Lading did not have complete description of all the goods and as a result, the Import General Manifest (IGM) also did not contain the complete description of goods imported. The boxes in which the goods were exported did not have the importer s name nor it have the correct description of the product. We find that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pacific International Traders was granted in similar circumstances. The facts of the said case were as follows: - 2. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership will rest with the exporter i.e. owner of the goods. Mr. Deodhar, however, drew our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that there is conspiracy between the petitioners and the so-called importers to under-value the goods and thereby depriving the Government of the legitimate import duties. It is stated that there were 5 earlier consignments by the same exporter and the consignment was disclaimed by the importer in similar fashion. Upon detailed examination carried out on the strength of declaration contained in the respective bills of lading it was found that the goods were not in conformity with the declared description and quantity as contained and declared in the respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspicion that the consignment was under-valued. The Division Bench has observed as under : It is pertinent to note that in case of the first consignment which arrived on 30-6-2000, necessary steps were taken and proceedings are being held for the alleged under-valuation against M/s. Rahul Associates. However, it seems that the second consignment which was sent to M/s. Rahul Associates is detained only on the assumption that it would have been under-valued. Significantly, it cannot be overlooked that M/s. Rahul Associates had not filed any Bill of Entry or import document, and in fact they expressed their intention to abandon the goods due to their bad financial condition. Hence, the second consignment which is in dispute, cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
