2017 (9) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... certain information that the goods were not properly valued for duty purposes certain inquiries were conducted by the Officers of Customs. During the course of inquiry, statement of Director of the importing company was recorded. The importer admitted that the value of imported goods were not correct and the correct value is much higher than what is declared. Similarly, the freight element also was not properly declared in the bill of entry. Based on details given by the Director of the importing company, the Revenue proceeded to calculate the differential duty on the imported goods covered not only in the present consignment but for the past imports by the appellants. During the course of investigation itself, the appellant waived the req....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted that the penalty imposed under Section 114A can be only equal to duty and in the present order even the interest portion is taken into the consideration while calculating the penalty. She also prayed for reduction of fine imposed under Section 125 for release of the goods and for setting aside the penalties imposed on the importer as well as the Managing Director. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that when an inquiry was conducted by the officers, the valuation particulars were provided by the importer. In fact the valuation as well the freight element was based on the details provided by the importer. The importer not only provided the details but paid the differential duty for the current as well as past consignments along with interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich such of like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale. The appellants are dealing with the imported goods; the value of the imported goods, including that of previous imports, as submitted by them to the investigation authority was accepted as the true value. The allegations that the value has been enhanced without ascertaining the same under Rules 4 to 8 of Valuation Rule is, therefore, not acceptable under the circumstances. Further, I find that the contention of the appellants that impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice is not based on facts. The Managing Director of the appellants himself requested in his statements that they did not want show case notice and personal hearing. The Director and Managing....