2014 (11) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n before the Settlement Commission, on 20-9-2012, contending that M/s. Lubecon Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., was issued with a show cause notice, dated 18-10-2011, for violation relating to undervaluation and misdeclaration, while importing Base Oil classifiable under CTH 2710 19 60. The show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,36,24,505/-. The said importer filed an application, before the Settlement Commission, along with five other co-applicants/co-noticees, including the Managing Director of the Company. 3. In these cases, it is relevant to note that one Mr. Zahroorul Huq was the third applicant before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission, by order, dated 24-8-2012, settled the issue by demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttled on payment of duty, interest, redemption fine and penalty and the Commission had exonerated the other co-applicants, including Mr. Zahroorul Huq. The petitioner/company pleaded that since co-applicants, in the earlier case, have been exonerated and full immunity has been granted, the petitioner should also be given full immunity. The Commission took into consideration the submission and observed that Mr. Zahroorul Huq is a 'H' card holder, conducted activities relating to documentation, etc., and relating to clearance of imported consignment mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 18-10-2011 and that Mr. Zahroorul Huq was an employee of the petitioner/company and therefore, whatever action done by Mr. Zahroorul Huq has the direct re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the applicant misdeclared the goods by describing it as Rubber Processing and Extender Oil instead of Base Oil and also undervalued the imported product. The applicant is therefore liable for penalty. There is no evidence to show that the co-applicants derived pecuniary advantage, though they had assisted in documentation, etc. As such, the Bench is inclined to take a lenient view and absolve the co-applicants from imposition of penalty." 8. In the light of the above finding, wherein the Commission held that there was no evidence to show that the co-applicants derived pecuniary advantage, though they had assisted in documentation, etc., the Settlement Commission was inclined to take a lenient view and absolved them from imposition o....