1996 (9) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f fine of Rs. 4,22,000.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 under Section 112 of the Act. This order is now challenged. 2.  It is now admitted that what the appellant imported from West Germany was a consignment of 1491 kgs. (gross) of rejected or defective textiles in running length. The invoice described the goods as rejected textile (defective). It mentions the weight as gross 1348 kgs. and net 1272 kgs. Under the heading metrage also 1272.00 was mentioned. The price was shown as DM 1 per unit. The CIF value was given as DM 3415.56. Obviously, the metrage given as 1272 was the nett declared weight of the consignment. Copy of the Bill of Entry is not before us, but it is admitted that the Bill of Entry declared the goods to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant admitted that the clearing agent was in error in showing the goods as neck ties in the Bill of Entry. Appellant reiterated the value was DM 1 per kg. and not per meter. 4.  The Additional Collector overruled the contentions of the appellant and passed the impugned order. 5.  The appellant, from the very beginning, was trying to devise ways and means of evading payment of customs duty. It was found that the Shipping Bill did not relate to this consignment, and it could not relate to the consignment of textiles in running length. It is evident that the appellant was hoping that the consignment will not be examined or that the Custom House will overlook the description of the goods in the invoice as textiles. There w....