2006 (2) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order]. - Both these appeals arise from a common OIA No. 440/2003-Cus., dated 22-12-2003 by which the importer and the CHA have been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section 112 of the Customs Act, which is under challenge. The grounds for proceeding against both the parties is that the Bill of Entry No. 6607, dated 6-5-2003 was filed through the CHA declar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... part of the supplier as the supplier, in the invoice, had shown the number of the imported item as only one and they were guided by the same. However, this plea has been rejected by both the authorities on the ground that the Airway Bill clearly disclosed the number of items as three. Therefore, both the authorities have clearly concluded that it was not a clerical error but an intentional one. B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntention to evade duty. Therefore, the confiscation and releasing the goods on payment of fine and penalty is not justified. 4. The learned JDR pointed out that it was an intentional act by both the parties. They could have got the goods examined before filing the Bill of Entry in terms of Section 46(2) of the Act and the discrepancy in the Invoice and Airway Bill was glaring and conspicuo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erical error and both the importer and the CHA had not noticed the discrepancy. In terms of Section 46(2) of the Customs Act, the appellants could have got the consignment examined before filing the Bill of Entry. The importer could have asked for clarification before filing the Bill of Entry. If this had been done, then they could have atleast taken a defence that they had held a bona fide belief....