TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-appeal no. 101/2007 Misc ACC dated 29th October 2007 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), CSIA, Mumbai upholding the confiscation of laptops imported vide bill of entry no. 587585/30.03.2006, but allowing redemption on payment of Rs. 4,00,000, and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 while disallowing the discharge of duty liability by utilization of credit claimed under the Duty Free Certificate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnel facility and that the imported goods, though covered by 13 invoices with a value of Rs. 19,26,292, had been cleared under declaration covering only 9 invoices valued at Rs. 6,68,066. It is also not in dispute that the appellant themselves requested regularisation of the import vide their letter dated 15th December 2006. 4. It is the claim of the appellant that they had themselves come forwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of duty liability. However, it is observed that it took almost nine months for the appellant to seek the regularisation. That the goods received at the premises of the appellant were not in conformity with the invoice that accompanied the goods and was, consequently, misdeclared could not but have been noticed immediately upon taking the goods into stock. No justifiable reason, or cogent explana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notification. A benefit that was not claimed at the time of import is not available for being extended in recovery proceedings. Accordingly, there is no merit in the claim of the appellant for discharge of duty liability by recourse to the exemption to the extent of credit available under the scheme supra. 7. The appellant did not display due diligence in reporting the discrepancy between the d....