9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regular Bill of Entry for the clearance of said consignment. The importer produced copy of licence agreement dt. 13.08.2007 with M/s CPT Holdings Inc. The total licence fee to be paid for 18 Titles was US$ 1,95,300/- i.e US $ 10850/- per Title. Accordingly the assessable value was calculated to be Rs. 4,40,501/-. They were issued show cause notice dated 08.02.2008 allegeing that the declared value had no relation to the value being remitted for import. The value being remitted for the import that the licence fee is liable to be included in the assessable value under Rule 10 (c) of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods), Rules 2007. The importer has declared value of Rs. 1908/- as against the licence fee to be remitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imported goods. The CBE was filed by Courier for Rs. 1908/-. Subsequently the CHA filed regular Bill of Entry after including licence value. The licence agreement and the amount to be remitted were in existence even prior to importation. The authorised courier on behalf of importer has made the declaration as to the truth of the contents of the courier bill of entry. Because of the examination of documents related to payment and the licence agreement, the fact of mis-declaration could be found out. The importer and courier have deliberately misdeclared the value in Bill of Entry to evade duty. The value was mis-declared by the courier to evade duty whatsoever the reason for non declaration may be on the part of importer. It may be deliber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty be reduced. 4. Shri Manoj Chavan, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing for the revenue supports the impugned order and submits that since mis-declaration of value has been made, the impugned order has been rightly passed. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. We are of the view that the Appellant has not adduced any evidence that the courier was not authorised by them to file Bill of Entry or they had intimated him to file Bill of Entry after including the licence fee. We are of the view that it was the responsibility of the Appellant importer to inform the exporter and the courier to mention correct details in the documents. Further the Bill of Entry could not have been filed without intimating the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
