2020 (11) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging that appellant company is an exporter of confectionary items from Dubai, has colluded with the importers in India by providing them with two different invoices for the imported goods and thereby abetted the importer in evasion of customs duty by causing misdeclaration. Against the orders of imposition of penalties, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel submits that (i)      The appellant is a foreign company registered and incorporated in Dubai, UAE. (ii)    The appellant does not have any business operations in India and is not undertaking any commercial activity within India at any point of time. (iii)   None o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. CC, Mumbai - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 652 (Tri. - Mum.). He also placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i)      HI Lingos Co. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 392 (T) affirmed by Supreme Court reported at 1998 (95) E.L.T. A147 (S.C.). (ii)    Advance Exports v. CC, Kandla - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 39 (Tri. - Ahmd.) affirmed by Supreme Court at 2015 (325) E.L.T. 462 (S.C.). (iii)   C. K. Kunhammed v. CCE & C - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 146 (T). (iv)   Shafeek P.K. v. CC, Cochin - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. - Bang.) (v)     Ankit Gopal Agarwal v. CC, Cochin - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 646 (Tri. - Bang.) (vi)   Gur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort to other enactments and/or articles. Hence, the findings are irrelevant. Further, the Learned Single Member has ignored the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HI Lingos Co. Ltd. (supra). 7. Further, the Learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. Reported at Nagpur, 2014 (299) E.L.T. 116 (Tri. - Mumbai). Therefore, he submits that imposition of penalty on the appellant is not correct and impugned orders are to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Learned Authorised Representative supported the decision of this Tribunal in appellant's own case affirming the penalty on the appellant. 9. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 10.&e....