9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces found in the file recovered from the appellant s premise, were found to be different from that filed before customs. Therefore, circumstantially, there were reasons to believe that the importer was habitually attempting to misdeclare the description, quantity and value of goods. It was not the case of the appellant that the invoices recovered from his possession on 11-1-2005 truthfully contained details of the goods imported vide said consignments. The appellant did not prove that he had the right intentions. The appellant rather than proving his bona fides was harping on mistakes in the investigation and procedures of clearance. The appellant cannot escape due to certain faults in the procedures and mistakes in the investigation. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As per the documents available in the file, it appeared that goods were imported in the past were, also misdeclared as is evident from the invoices. On conclusion of the investigation, a SCN was issued proposing : (i) Confiscation of the goods in question imported vide Airway Bill No. 05841991806. (ii) Proposing to redetermine the declared value of the said consignment the previous four consignments (out of six) and determining differential duty. (iii) Levy of fines and penalties. 2. A SCN was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide Order No. 10/2007, dated 28-2-2007, wherein he has confiscated the goods imported vide Airway Bill of Entry cited supra; imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 2,50,000/- in lieu of confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of goods were not recorded; the lower authority has obtained comments from the investigation agency and the copy of the same was not given to the appellant. In view of the above, the Commissioner (A) should have exonerated the company as the case was falsely made out. 4. The Learned AR has reiterated the findings of OIO. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 6. We find that the goods imported by the appellant vide Airway Bill of Entry No. 05841991806 were seized. The contention of the appellant was that he has not filled the Bill of Entry therefore the misdeclaration of value, quantity and nature of the goods cannot be alleged. However, we see from the records of the case and the findings of the Learned Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n intention to evade payment of duty. Under these circum-stances, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants vis- -vis the impugned goods. Therefore, we find that there is no need to interfere with the OIO and OIA in respect of the goods imported vide Airway Bill of Entry No. 05841991806. Looking into the fact that the Commissioner (A) has already given substantial relief in respect of consignments imported earlier and has reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant from ₹ 2,50,000/- to mere ₹ 50,000/-. We find that the appellants have made no case for setting aside the order of Commissioner (A) and further reduction or waiver of penalty. Therefore, the appeal is liable for rejection. 7. In view of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
