9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the knowledge of the importer and is not arrived based on certain materials collected by the Revenue from third party sources, we are not finding any force in the submission of the appellants which is against their own submission made before the lower authorities. On merit as well as on imposition of penalties and fine we are in agreement with the impugned order - The penalty should be equal to duty only and cannot include interest portion of such duty - appeal dismissed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/156-157/2011-[DB] - C/A/55388-55389/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 19-7-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Mrs. Reena Rawal (Advocate) appeared for the Appellant Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s valued at ₹ 25,71,323/- but allowed the redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The differential duty and the interest paid already was ordered to be appropriated. He imposed penalty of ₹ 17,88,972/- under Section 114A under Customs Act, 1962 and further penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- on the Managing Director under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order upheld the original order except for reduction of redemption fine from ₹ 5 Lakhs to ₹ 3.5 Lakhs. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the valuation adopted by the Department is not correct. The Managing Director agreed to the enhancement as suggested by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for lenient view. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present appeals. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The facts of the case are not in dispute that the goods which are imported were not assessed to proper duty was admitted by the import themselves. Based on the particulars and details given by the managing director of the importing company, the valuation including freight element was considered by the assessing officer before calculating the differential duty. Now in the present appeal the appellant pleads that the valuation adopted is wrong and is in violation of the Valuation Rules. Since the correct value is only in the knowledge of the importer and is not arrived based on certain m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed between Feb./2009. This clearly shows intention of the appellants to evade duty. Since the declared value was not the true value, the imported goods were rightly liable to confiscation and as the importer attempted to evade duty and defraud revenue, they were rightly liable to penal action under section 114 A and 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 7. We have perused the impugned order and findings as recorded above. We have no reason to interfere with such findings. Accordingly, on merit as well as on imposition of penalties and fine we are in agreement with the impugned order. However, regarding the quantification of penalty under Section 114A, we note that the original authority has considered the interest portion also. We find no sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
