9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they had wilfully or knowingly, made wrong declarations in the courier bills of entry, The only findings which the adjudicating authority relies for imposing penalty, is that the appellant failed to cross-check the declared value, importer's name, IEC and identity of the person who had submitted the documents for the purpose of filing of courier bill of entry - penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Commissioner of Customs (II), ACC, Mumbai. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records it transpires that the appeal preferred by the appellant is against the imposition of penalties on them under the provisions of Section 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out, unnecessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertain independently as required under Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, the correctness and completeness of information submitted to proper officer. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits defending that penalty cannot be imposed on them under Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law imposed the penalties. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue, importer's name, IEC and identity of the person who had submitted the documents for the purpose of filing of courier bill of entry. In my considered view this omission of the appellant, at the most, may attract the provisions of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and cannot be considered as violations for imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
