2016 (12) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2005. The said superbike was purchased by the appellant in August 2007 against a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs paid vide cheque dated 07.08.2007 i.e. after almost a period of more than 2 years from the date of import of the goods. The same was also registered in the appellant's name by the transportation authority. 3.  Subsequently investigations were made as regards value of the said superbike and it was found that the same was undervalued at the time of the import of the same. Statements of the appellant were also recorded wherein he admitted that the bike was undervalued. However, he contended that since the value of the second hand bike is much less in the market, the same was purchased at a value of Rs. 8 lakhs, from the import....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue of valuation and the payment of differential customs duty arose. Hence, the limited issue is whether the appellant is liable for any action under the provisions of Customs Act 1962. The role of the Appellant is that he bought the said bike from Shri Rishi Sood against consideration indicating payments in cheques and against documentation in the form of registration certificate issued by local transport authorities for the said bike, and the said bill of entry which turned out to be genuine subsequently. However, it is not disputed that the appellant bought the said bike against good consideration and based on documents given to him by seller of the bike i.e. Shri Rishi Sood, hence the appellant, apparently, purchased the said bike in bon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant in his own statement has indicated that he was aware of the undervaluation of the subject good, at the time of acquiring possession of the bike and hence penalty of Rs. 25000/- will meet the requirements of law." 7.  The appellant's grievance is that even though the Commissioner (A) has observed that there is no role played by the assessee for illegal import of the bike and as such there is no reason for imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act still he has upheld the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee. They have also relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal. 8.  As is clear from the above paragraph, the appellate authority has come to a clear finding that there is no role played by the pr....