2014 (4) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y by name Total Shipping India (P) Ltd. The controversy pertains to one consignment of consumer goods and household items imported from UAE by one Kunhimohammed through importer M/s. Pride International Trading Company. The entire issue is based on the allegation that there was misdeclaration of goods covered under Bill of Entry No.151584 dated 25.11.2004 said to be in the container. Customs seal on the container was found broken. Further when container was examined, excess goods worth 56,33,360 as against declaration of value of goods at 1,00,000 were found, hence investigation was initiated which culminated into the present penalty order which is besides confiscation of the goods. Involvement of the present appellant as a Manager of Custo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e purpose of disposal of the appeal with reference to actual involvement of the appellant in handling goods as agent of the customs house agency firm and then proceeded to opine that the statement given by the appellant coupled with other facts clearly indicated that there was meddling with the container and there was intentional information as declaration given to mislead the department concealing actual valuation of the goods contained in the consignment and involvement of the appellant was for a consideration of 10,000/-, therefore, he was found guilty of the allegation, rejecting all the objections and defence raised by the appellant. 5. We have gone through the order of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. The statement of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tatement under Section 108 of the Act, we find no material indicating in fact this statement or letter dated 8.4.2005 was sent to the department. Even otherwise, after his release on 4.12.2004 he had ample time till 8.4.2005 to retract his statement under section 108 of the Act. He did not do so. Much later, even if we consider 8.4.2005 reply, i.e., almost five months after his statement he retracted from what he has stated before the department. In the absence of acknowledging the statement dated 8.4.2005 by the department, the only retraction is by way of reply dated 17.12.2005. Therefore, Commissioner was justified in opining that retraction was an afterthought and he did not make use of the earliest opportunity to do so when he was prod....