TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that M/s Santosh Radio Products imported consignments of CDRs (Compact Disc-Recordable) by misdeclaring as DVDRs (Digital Versatile Disc-Recordable) vide Bill of Entry Nos.389128 dt. 25.01.2008 and 395144 dt.26.02.2008. A Show-cause notice dated 01.09.2008 was issued proposing confiscation of entire imported goods covered by the abovementioned Bills of Entries under Section 111 (m) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the deliberate misdeclaration of description and concealment of the goods. It also proposed to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act on M/s Santosh Radio Products, Shri Kishan Kumar Kejriwal (Partner of M/s Santosh Radio Products) and M/s Santosh Sales (P) Ltd. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Shri Munna Lal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty and therefore, it would not come within the purview of Section 111 (m) of the Act for confiscation of the goods. It is submitted that DVDRs were separately packed in separate cartons which cannot be used for the purpose of concealment of the goods and Section 119 of the Act cannot be invoked. It is also contended that the penalty is proposed under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Act. So, the imposition of penalty under Section 114 AA and 117 of the Act is totally beyond the scope of the Show-cause notice. The ld.Counsel submitted a written submission with the case laws. 4. The ld.A.R. on behalf of the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that it is a clear case of mis-declaration of goods and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Tribunal in the case of Satya Industries Vs, CC, Amritsar : 2016 (344) ELT 639 (Tri.-Chd.). In that case, no expert opinion was obtained by the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the correctness of the declaration made by the appellants. Hence, the said case law would not be applicable to the instant case. Therefore, confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) is justified. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BEL India Trade (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi : 2007 (216) ELT 441 (Tri.-Del.), where it was held that if the mis-declaration in respect of description of goods, country of origin, value is done to evade payment of duty, in such cases, the goods are liable for confiscation and the import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfiscation of 7,56,000 pcs. of DVDRs under Section119 of the Act is not correct. On perusal of the Show-cause notice, I find that it has narrated the facts of the case at length for the purpose of confiscation under Section 111 (m) and 119 of the Act for mis-declaration and concealment of goods. It is stated there in that these acts of omission and commission appear to have rendered the appellants liable for penal action under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Act. Section 112 provides penalty for improper import of goods, etc. Any person, in relation to any goods, does or omits any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such act or who acquires possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it clear that it is a penalty of residuary nature. 10. In the present case, the facts narrated in the Show-cause notice would show that M/s Santosh Radio Products and its Partner Shri Kishan Kumar Kejriwal had knowingly made incorrect declaration, which is covered under Section 114 (AA) of the Act. 11. The Adjudicating Authority while invoking Section 114AA and 117 of the Act observed as under : "17. (ii) As for non-invocation of Sections 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the SCN, the adjudicating authority can invoke the said Sections as decided by the Hon'ble CESTAT,New Delhi in the case of M/s Biharji Enterprises Vs. CC,New Delhi as reported in 2001 (136) ELT 912 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal in Para No.6 has held thus if the ....