9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order for imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Acct, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the exporter Q.S. Oversees owned by Shri Mohammed Qasim undertaken the job of export of one consignment of Indian Hand Woollen Floor Covering Carpets by declaring excess value with intention to avail excess draw back claim through the appellant (CHA). During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the over-valuation of the impugned goods. In these circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant on account of aiding and abetting to claim excess draw back in the light of the decision in the case of Irma Impex v. CC (Port) Kolkata - 2010 (252) ELT 253 (Kol.), Kunal Travels - 2005 (183) ELT 299 (Tri. Del.), and CC v. Vaz Forwarding Ltd. - 2011 (266) ELT 39 (Guj.). 5. On the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods are liable for confiscation. On this finding, the adjudicating authority arrived at a decision to penalize the appellant. In fact, the adjudicating authority has not alleged that the appellant was having knowledge of over-valuation of the impugned goods. Further, it is not in dispute that IEC, PAN and the authority letter were not genuine. The address of the appellant is also genuine. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
