TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[Order]. - Ld. Commissioner of Customs, in the impugned order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. This penalty is based on the following finding :- "I observe that Shri T.P. Rajmohan has successfully evaded contact with and apprehension by the Customs officers and has not responded to the Summons issued by the Customs. His conduct sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso under Section 112(a) ibid. This proposal, however, was dropped by the Commissioner. Nevertheless, Id. Commissioner proceeded to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a). 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that M/s. Maluram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (MEPL, for short) had imported a consignment of 'hair care and dental care products' from Korea and file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigations, the department issued the aforesaid show-cause notice, wherein Shri K. Jayaram was alleged to have fabricated the invoice showing US$ 67,627.60 as the value of the imported goods and misdeclared the value in the Bill of Entry. In the SCN, the appellant was alleged to have abetted Shri K. Jayaram's offence. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner dropped the charge against Shri K. Jaya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments and of misdeclaring the value of the goods in Bill of Entry. He, however, exonerated Shri K. Jayaram from penal liability under Section 112(a). It is, thus, obvious that ld. Commissioner went into a misconception. Paragraphs 17 & 18 of his order would expose his error of judgment, which are reproduced here under :- "17. It appeared from the statement of Shri K. Jayaram, Managing D....