2016 (11) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Appellant says that this appellant although was in the chain of import linking the importer and the CHA, he has no role to cause evasion of duty. Therefore, levy of penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- each under section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is unwarranted and unjustified. 2. Revenue on the other hand says that when there were forged doc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re mis-declaration of the description of the goods. (c) The goods appearing in the country of origin certificate was polyester knitted fabric whereas in the invoice and packing list the goods described were polyester stock lot knitted fabric . (d) The value declared was on the basis of the mis-declaration of the description of the goods. That was obviously undervalued. (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant from his hand in glove in commitment of offence in absence of any evidence to the contrary led by appellant. Accordingly, commitment of breach of law by the appellant under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 has been established being intimately concerned with the import and being a conduit in commitment of breach of law. This section deals with the cases of confiscatory goods where abet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re falsified with conscious knowledge to cause evasion. In this case, appellant s questionable modus operandi and oblique motive demonstrated its involvement in causing evasion. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) imposed under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant does not require any lenient consideration for which that is also upheld. It may....