9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ON'BLE MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Mr. M. S. Sanjeev Kumar , Advocate for the Appellant Mr. K. Vishwanath , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : P. A. AUGUSTIAN In the present appeal, appellant challenging the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 A of the Customs Act 1962. Brief facts of the case is that an importer Shri Rajesh Kumar had imported 475 cartons containing artificial flowers, photo frames, fancy mirrors etc. and filed a Bill of Entry on 20.06.2014. Alleging that said goods is imported by resorting to undervaluation, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued. Thereafter Adjudication Authority vide Order-In-Original No.116/2016 dated 23.05.2016 adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that based on the very same statements, proceedings were initiated against other importers. In ibid cases, without any corroborative evidence, only based on the statements recorded from the importer, Adjudication Authority held that the goods are undervalued and importer was forced to pay differential duty and penalty for release of the goods. While considering the evidentiary value of the statement, this Tribunal has held that there is no clear-cut evidence abetment or instigation on the part of the appellant to undervalue the goods declared by the importer. This Tribunal also held that the appellant had only acted as a clearing and forwarding agents and there is no independent corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Director, Enforcement Directorate reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 182 (Del.). (ii) Romesh Chandra Mehta V/s State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.). (iii) Naresh J. Sukhawani V/s Union of India reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.). (iv) K.P. Abdul Majeed V/s Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 671 (Ker.). 4. I have gone through the records and submissions made by both sides. No acts of omission or commission, which would render the goods liable for confiscation have been alleged or proved on the part of the appellant. No charge of abetment is also evidenced against the appellant. Moreover, finding of this Tribunal based on the very same statement is squarely applicable in present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
