9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J/57/AD/RK/B of 1997 under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( the Act ). The allegation against the appellant is that he paid an amount of Rs. 96,217 (being the amount of difference between the value declared in the import documents and the value as assessed) to Karan Paul, Sales Execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the customs (Rs. 1,38,875) comes to Rs. 96,217. It is, thus, clear that the amount of Rs. 96,217, which is the subject-matter of the impugned show-cause notice in the present case, had been worked out on the basis of the assessment made by the customs. Although, the department had placed reliance on the statement of the appellant dated 19-3-1996 in support of the charge, the incriminating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the value which was the same as assessed by the customs and since that value had been set aside, it cannot be said that the value of import in question was under-valued. Independently of the customs case, there is no evidence on record to establish under-invoicing and no evidence in that regard had been relied on in the SCN. The sole evidence relied on in the SCN is the appellant s own state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
