2007 (6) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner has held that the importer firm had indulged in deliberate and suppressing and mis-stating of relevant information from the department. On this conclusion he has held that the goods imported under ten bills of entry grossly undervalued became liable to confiscation and on a consequence redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs was ordered. He also confirmed a demand of Rs. 13,20,827/- against the firm besides imposing a penalty equivalent amount on the firm under Section 114A. A penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed on Shri Anil Kumar, the sole proprietor under Section 112 of the Act. 2. The appellants are counting upon the following grounds :- (i)      That the adjudicating authority failed to produce the witness....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ransaction between him and the appellants. The details as available at para 23 of the impugned order clearly goes to show the deep involvement of the appellants in hoodwinking the revenue. In addition to the above statement, in respect of the three models of mobile phone namely; Motorola 300, Panasonic, Mitsubishi Trim, the respective statements recorded from the employees of the relevant companies and the price list obtained from them show the correct prices of these products. All these weighty evidence go in favour of the Revenue confirming that the value declared by the appellants was far below the actual price paid by them. Shri Ravinder Singh's statement also shows the mode of payment indicating that a part of the value is paid by cheq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igating team which was never responded by the appellants during the course of investigation. Even in spite of Court's directions, the appellant had not bothered to cooperate with the investigating officers. 5. We also find that the details given in the impugned order at para 2 clearly indicates that the examination of the consignment was conducted on 5-1-2001 not only in the presence of two independent witnesses but also in the presence of representative of Airport Authority of India. Thus, appellants are not correct in stating that no panch witnesses were there when the officers visited for examining their consignment. In view of this there is no lacuna in the way the investigation was conducted by the Revenue. 6. As regard....