2017 (9) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellant on high sea sales basis from the supplier M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (KOEL), the DRI noticed that there were two sets of high sea sale invoices with same number and date raised by the supplier on the appellants, one indicating lesser value and the other indicating actual transaction value, which is higher. On verification of the details of payment made by the appellant to the supplier, it was noticed that the appellants have paid higher amounts to the supplier than the amounts declared for purpose of assessment of customs duty. The high sea sales agreement between the parties stipulates that the buyer agrees to make full payment towards cost of documents, comprising and inclusive of CIF value, L/C, bank charges, interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Customs, Mangalore, re-determining the assessable value of the goods imported vide various Bills of Entry by the appellant in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and confirmed the differential duty amount short paid on the said imports, confirmed the interest amount payable by the appellant and appropriated the same from the amounts already paid by them besides imposing equivalent penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and also redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the said goods. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for their acts of omissions and commissions by which the imported go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the high sea sales invoice which is filed with the customs authorities for correlation purpose. It has been further stated in the written submission that the importer is KOEL and not the appellant and on the basis of invoice prepared by KOEL, the appellant has paid the entire duty well before the issue of show-cause notice. However, the authorities have imposed penalties and fine wrongly on the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of the appellant as well as the grounds of appeal, I find that it is the KOEL who was the importer and who filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the appellant, as the appellant was not aware of the procedures. Furth....