Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (3) TMI 459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty of Rs.75 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Rajiv Seth, Director of the Company and of Rs.75 lakhs on Shri Giriraj Rattan Bagri who is Director of the exporting firm located in Hong Kong. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that M/s. R V Solutions Pvt. Ltd. imported mobile phones and got the same cleared on payment of leviable duty. The present impugned order relates to 27 past consignments and one live consignment. Allegations and findings against the said applicant is as regards the mis-declaration and under valuation of the mobile phones. Appellant had declared the value ranging from 28, 30, 35 US $ per piece whereas the Revenue has enhanced the same to 55 US $ per piece by taking into consideration the imports of other importers. However....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....khs approx. As against the above, the appellant has already given the bank guarantee of 13.98 lakhs, which is sufficient to cover the disputed amount. Accordingly, he prays for dispensing with the pre-deposit of dues against the applicants. 5. Learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the finding of adjudicating authority wherein he has dealt with wrong declaration of the goods as regards their brand name as also the fraud played by the appellant by submitting that the contract / agreement entered into by M/s. Shenzhen Dhingshang Electronics with Hong Kong party (who was actually an Indian) reveals that Shenzhen Dhingshang Electronics was not a manufacturer of the mobile phone but was simplicitor trader and there wer....