2000 (3) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ger, for the Appellant. Shri A. Ashokan, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - These two appeals are against the order of the Collector imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs each under section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. The facts in both cases are common. They are these: The appellant was an agent of M/s. Kovo Foreign Trade Corporation, which manufactures ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessable value. He found the importer guilty of mis-declaration and found that the appellant before us abetted such mis-declaration. 3. The representative of the appellant has nothing to say except to rely upon a decision of the Tribunal, order No. 1667-71/98/WRB, dated 13-6-1998 [1998 (103) E.L.T. 442 (Tri.)] in the appeal filed by the same appellant and two others against Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner has imposed penalty on the importer. It would then follow that the manufacturer or the appellant had informed the importer that this commission was payable. In that case there would be no question of the appellant abetting the mis-declaration. It was then up to the importer to act according to law. 6. It is in fact not possible for us to accept that the split up in the commission was d....