9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the goods in value is also seems to be proved against M/s M.N. Enterprises, proprietor. The grounds of appeal of M/s M.N. Enterprises only seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the purchase price of the goods was as per the present market value. The adjudicating authority has clearly recorded a finding that it is not so - penalty upheld. As regards penalty imposed on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellants Shri M K Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran All these appeals are preferred against Order-in-Original No: CC-(MKG)-4/2006 dated 13/30/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai. 2. The appeals challenge the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. 3. Appeal No. C/738/2006 is filed by M/s MN Enterp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had exported goods which are mis-declared in weight and value and are held liable to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. As regards imposition of penalty on the proprietor of M/s M.N. Enterprises, we find that the adjudicating authority has held that the quantity and weight and value of the goods sought to be exported and attempted to be export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Section 114(iii) only on the ground that the shipping bill in which the goods were exported or sought to be exported have been filed by the CHA and signed by its employee. In the entire order of the adjudicating authority there is nothing on record to show that the employee of CHA or the partner of CHA were aware of the fact that they were having any knowledge of the mis-declaration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
