2014 (11) TMI 1102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were issued with a show cause notice by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin Unit calling upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, as to why (a) the declared value of the goods in the aforesaid Bills of Entry shown in the Annexure-D should not be rejected, (b) why the goods should not be confiscated, (c) why the amount of Rs. 42,00,000/- should not be appropriated towards the differential duty amount of Rs. 35,48,881/- and interest; (d) why the amount of Rs. 7,36,100/- which was found unaccounted in their office premises and seized should not be confiscated and (e) why a penalty should not be imposed. 3. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch imposed penalty on the company as well as personal penalty on the Managing Director of the company. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Settlement Commission has not given reasons for not granting complete immunity from imposition of fine and penalty. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that redemption fine could not be imposed unless a market survey is conducted and that the amount is a very fanciful claim and as such, the order passed by the Commission is not tenable. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, after reiterating the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence as brought out in the impugned order passed by the S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion has given certain reasons. The petitioner seeks for setting aside the order as regards redemption fine and penalty. Insofar as redemption fine is concerned, the Commission made an observation that the applicants in their submission before DRI admitted that they undervalued the goods under import in order to reduce the liability towards payment of customs duty, in view of stiff competition they faced in the trade; they also admitted that difference in value between the actual value for imports and the value adopted for payment of customs duty was routed and paid to the overseas exporters through non-banking channels. Further it was recorded that the co-applicants were involved in the complicities and commission of offence leading to the ....