9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither raised nor confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in absence of any determination of duty under Section 28(1), penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. Therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A. From the reading of Section 114AA, it is observed that if the person knowingly makes the false declaration or signs any such document then only he will be liable to penalty under Section 114AA - In the present case, there is no case that the Director of company has done any act which specified under Section 114AA. Even the enhancement of value was done on the basis of contemporaneous import, it cannot be said that the Director has done anything to mis-declare the value - neither the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalty under Section 114A. The penalty under section 114AA was also proposed on Shri Sameer Santosh Kumar Jaiswal. The show-cause notice was adjudicated. The goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the adjudicating authority did not impose redemption fine for the reason that the goods were not available for confiscation. However, a penalty of ₹ 12,45,585/- was imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant company. A penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs has also been imposed on Shri Sameer Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Director of M/s Friends Timber Pvt. Ltd. under Section 114AA. Therefore, the appellants are before me. 2. Shri C.M. Sharma, learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 As regards penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on the Director of the appellant company under Section 114AA, he submits that invocation of Section 114AA is not sustained in the present case, therefore no penalty under Section 114AA can be imposed on the Director of the appellant company. 3. Shri S.R. Nair, E.O. (AR) and Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri M.K. Mall reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that there is a clear case of mis-declaration of value which was enhanced and the same was admitted by the appellant, therefore, the penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were rightly imposed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods. From the reading of the above Section 114AA, it is observed that if the person knowingly makes the false declaration or signs any such document then only he will be liable to penalty under Section 114AA. In the present case, there is no case that the Director of company has done any act which specified under Section 114AA. Even the enhancement of value was done on the basis of contemporaneous import, it cannot be said that the Director has done anything to mis-declare the value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
