2009 (2) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 vide Bill of Entry 00725 dated 5-6-2008. They declared a value of USD 2,62,668 FOB based on the invoice dated 5-5-08. But on scrutiny of the document, it was found out that the value was different and in terms of the Annexure 1 to the contract, the value of the item imported turned out to be 2,94,950/-. There was a difference in value. Hence, Revenue proceeded against the appellants. No show cause notice was issued, as the party waived the issue of a show cause notice. The charges are simple that the transaction value declared was found to be low to the extent of 34,950 USD. The party also accepted it. Therefore, it was held that the impugned goods imported against the Bill of Entry dated 5-6-2008, are liable for confiscation under Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y instructions to the Overseas Suppliers Moderna Machinery, China for shipping the Hydraulic Press to Visakhapatnam Port. Accordingly, the Hydraulic Press (including Single Feeder) YP 4000 was shipped by the overseas supplier under the cover of Commercial Invoice dated 5-5-2008 declaring the total FOB value as USD 2,62,668. Based on the above documents, the appellants filed the Bill of Entry and declared the said value in terms of the invoice. But, however, when the consignment was being cleared, on the Scrutiny of the contract documents, the Customs Authorities noticed at difference in the value with Annexure 1 of the Contract. Therefore, the Customs Authorities held up the clearance and ask for the explanation. On hearing the above discre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir case. The appellants, however, could not meet the said new Commissioner, as he was pre-occupied with taking over of the charge of his new position and other engagements. While the appellants were awaiting personal hearing in the matter, the new Commissioner adjudicated the matter vide Order-in-Original No. 16/2008 dated 3-7-2008. From the above, the misdeclaration is not an intentional and it has arisen due to a bona fide mistake. The facts indicate that the overseas supplier had inadvertently shipped the consignment of 'Single Feeder', along with the consignment of 'Hydraulic Press' to Visakhapatnam Port, when the same should have been shipped to Mundra Port. This fact is evident from the Import Invoice dated 8-5-2008, wherein the val....