9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done by M/s. Sachha Soudha Pedhi - he was a key person as intending agent to plan out the entire modus operandi of undervaluation in respect of goods imported from M/s. IJIMASIA Pte. Limited - The Appellant being a abettor of evasion of duty and a key person and mastermind behind undervaluation, the penalty cannot be set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel strenuously contends that the Appellant was neither the importer nor in any way concerned with the actual transaction. The Appellant was only intending agent. The Appellant in no way was concerned with fixation of the price. The learned counsel submits that by no stretch the Appellant could have been imposed penalty under Section 112(a). The learned counsel further submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable,- (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereinafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s. IJIMASIA Pte. Limited. The Tribunal has also considered the arguments with regard to quantum of penalty considering the act of the present Appellant. The Appellant being a abettor of evasion of duty and a key person and mastermind behind undervaluation, the said plea is also rejected. 8. Considering the above, no substantial question of law arises. Appeal as such dismissed. No costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
