TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clearance at the concessional rate of duty of 5% in terms of Notification No. 97/04-Cus. The value of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was EUR 5,85,890/- based on the supplier's invoice No. 95572 dated 30.12.2005. EPCG licence dated 10.2.2006 was produced by the importer. The assessing authority permitted clearance of the goods against payment of duty at the aforesaid concessional rate under the EPCG scheme. Accordingly, the duty was paid on 27.2.2006 and the capital goods cleared for home consumption. However, the consignment was intercepted by officers of Customs within the port premises on the basis of intelligence to the effect that the value of the goods had been misdeclared by the importer to evade payment of appropriate duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. The appeals are against the Commissioner's order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Counsel for the importer has referred to the various import documents as well as the statements of the importer and has submitted that there was no deliberate misdeclaration of value of the capital goods in this case and that the declaration of value as EUR 5,85,890/- based on an invoice of the supplier happened by inadvertent mistake. It is submitted that the proper invoice of the supplier bearing same number and date of the above invoice had already been filed before the DGFT in connection with application for EPCG licence and hence the same was not immediately available....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the importer for valid reasons even in the absence of mens rea. Learned SDR has not disputed the basic facts of the case. 5. The learned Counsel for the CHA has also claimed consequential relief against the penalty imposed on them. The argument is that, if the importer did not have any intent to evade payment of duty, the CHA cannot be held to have abetted any offence of the importer. We have heard the learned SDR also, who has opposed the CHA's arguments. 6. After considering the arguments, we have found good case for both the appellants. The various documents and statements available on record would collectively indicate that the transactions are not vitiated by any element o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms-charge order was issued. The subsequent conduct of the appellant has also been found to be straightforward. This, however, would not detract from the consequences arising under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. Wrong declaration of value of the imported goods would mean misdeclaration and the same would attract confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, in the absence of breach of the Customs Notification, Section 111(o) could not have been invoked to confiscate the goods. Apparently, the fine was determined by the Commissioner by taking into account the confiscability of the goods under both clauses (m) and (o) of Section 111. Obviously, the quantum of fine needs to....