2016 (12) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Applicants Sh. Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent Per V. Padmanabhan The Appeal is directed against the Order-ln-Appeal dated 13.11.2013. The issue involved in the case is that the importer placed an order for a pump which was supplied free of charge and indicated nominal charge of 35 Euro [Rs. 2,583/-1 in the invoice. The courier company submitted documents accordingly with customs f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The contention of the appellant is that there is no justification for confiscation of the goods. Their submission is that there was no mala fide intention on their part to mis-declare the value of the import goods. The goods have been sent as free of charge, replacement for which no payment is involved to the supplier. The value of Euro 35 [Rs. 2,583/-] was indicated by them on the basis of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Sanjay Jain, for the respondent. 3. Ld. DR submitted that the goods have been rightly confiscated under Section 111(m) inasmuch as the goods did not correspond in value to the declaration made in Bill of Entry. He further argued that but for the fact that the goods were checked and examined by Customs, the wrong declaration of value would have gone undetected. 4. I have considered the sub....