TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. and was engaged in the assembly and subsequent sale of colour/Black and White Televisions, Video Cassette Players and Video Cassette Recorders in the local market. The appellant used to import certain components required for the assembly. In the year 1999, the appellant created M/s. Aashna Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and his wife along with the Appellant were the directors. It is the case of the appellant that due to financial constrains in the year 2001-2002, M/s. Aashna Electronics Pvt. Ltd. entered into the business of assembling and trading of car cassette players, car CD Players, Car amplifiers, car stereo systems, Music system, VCD players, LCD screens etc. Till 2006, the said company was engaged in trading of electronic goods/parts.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hna Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was mastermind and the controlling person of the imports of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation and had full knowledge about the undervaluation of the goods at the time of their importation and had knowingly and consciously failed to declare the correct value before the Customs Authorities at the time of import with the sole intention to evade payment of duty in connivance with the overseas suppliers. The appellant was called upon as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him in terms of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and to why duty on such import be not levied against the appellant. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice. 5. By an order-in-original dated 23rd November,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... strongly relied upon various findings given by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) holding that the appellant was mastermind in the entire import and was fully involved and had controlled over all aspects of the transactions for the goods. He submitted that CESTAT was justified in imposing the condition of deposit and this Court shall not interfere with such liberal order passed by the CESTAT against the appellant. 9. On the basis of the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority has arrived at the following findings which are impugned by the appellant before CESTAT :- I. Gross undervaluation was resorted by the appellant in respect of various items imported in the name of M/s. Parth Marketin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious provisions of Customs Act and Rules made thereunder. V. The appellant was the mastermind and the controlling person of the imports made by M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation and had full knowledge about the undervaluation of the goods at the time of their importation and had knowingly and consciously failed to declare the correct value before the Customs Authorities at the time of import with the sole intention to evade payment of duty in connivance with the overseas suppliers. It has been corroborated by the e-mails retrieved from the seized computers, quotation of the overseas suppliers, etc. VI. The appellant had adopted surreptitious method for selling imported goods in grey mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f CESTAT that show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority and the order-in-original indicate that the appellant was the mastermind behind the import of various goods and that the entire , activity of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were controlled and managed by the appellant through his staff and that the proprietor of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were receiving only monthly compensation for renting/lending their names and the transactions were undertaken by the appellant cannot be faulted. 12. In so far as the submission of the learned senior advocate that CESTAT was not correct in holding that the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 validates the show cause notice issued by....