2018 (3) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) - for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the Order dated 17.02.2009 of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. 2. The appellants imported "Dryers, Heater and Cooler" and filed the Bill of Entry on 31.07.2008 for clearing the same. Certain enquiries were conducted by the officers of Customs with reference to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 21,50,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants had bonafide belief regarding the declaration of value being correct at the time of import of goods. The declaration by the exporter in the invoice to the effect that "value for customs purpose only"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their bonafideness. 4. The Ld. AR strongly contested the submissions of the appellant. He submitted that the impugned order elaborately discussed all the points raised by the appellants. Drawing our attention to specific findings recorded at para 30 to 33 of the impugned order, the Ld. AR submitted that there is no question of bonafide belief in this case on the part of the appellants. The vari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to explain the mismatch between the declared value and the value in the purchase order, the appellants came with another explanation of three different shipments covered by the said purchase order. This was proved to be factually incorrect. There were only two shipments and there was no third shipment at all. Further, during the course of enquiry, they have submitted a revised invoice which did....