TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese 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 declaring clearance of one number of Routing En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. Both the authorities have clearly held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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 conspicuous. No reasonable person in such a circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 and their action was not to evade the duty. The ....