9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the goods was declared as US $ 6222 equivalent to Indian Rs. 2,29,262/- in the bill of entry. The Department subjected the goods to 100% examination, scrutinised the particulars in the bill of entry vis-a-vis those mentioned in the bill of lading, invoice and allied documents, conducted market enquiry, recorded statements of the representative of the appellants and reached a preliminary finding that the importers misdescribed the goods and misdeclared their value in the bill of entry. On this basis, by show cause notice, the Customs authorities proposed to confiscate the goods (already placed under seizure by them) and to impose penalties on the importer (appellants in Appeal No. C/453/2000-A) and two of their employees (appellants i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t upon alleged undervaluation of the goods, in the show cause notice issued to the importer and further that the order of adjudication passed by the Dy. Commissioner also did not specifically demand any differential duty. But yet a penalty equivalent in quantitative terms to the differential duty of customs alleged to be due to the Department was imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act by the adjudicating authority and such penalty was upheld by the lower appellate authority. Ld. Advocate further submits that personal penalties were also imposed on the importer's employees under Section 112(a) of the Act in spite of the fact that there was no such specific proposal in the show cause notice issued to them. It is the definite case of ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the show cause notice, the allegation of undervaluation of the goods was specifically raised against the importer and the differential duty of customs allegedly sought to be evaded by the importer was quantified, the notice contained no proposal to recover such duty from the importer. The only proposals in the show cause notice, as we have been able to perceive, were confiscation of the goods, imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 114A and imposition of personal penalties under Section 112 (a). It was not even ascertainable from the show cause notice as to which one of the parties was sought to be penalised under Section 114A or under Section 112 (a). Nevertheless, we find, the Dy. Commissioner imposed mandatory penalty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
