2022 (4) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Bill of Entry was assessed and marked for examination by SIIB on first check basis. The goods were initially examined on 28/03/2011 and thereafter the final examination on 04/04/2011. On examination, it was found that there is mismatch with regard to the quantity and also contained branded goods being Nokia Chargers. Some undeclared travel chargers, AC adaptors were also found. The Appellant submitted before the Customs that it was their first order through M/s Pama and Company Ltd. UK but, due to some mistake at the end of the exporter/shipper, they also imported some another goods which are not as per the purchase order. In support of their contention, they also submitted letter dated 19/04/2011 received from Pama and Company UK, wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lar/identical goods being imported by other importers. Revenue issued show-cause notice dated 03/06/2011 require to show cause, why not the declared value rejected and the goods be re-valued in terms of Rule 12 of the valuation Rule under Section 14 and the value be re-determined at Rs. 7,38,970/- and Customs duty be remanded at Rs. 1,48,095/- and as to why not the goods be confiscated, further proposed to confiscate the Nokia brand mobile chargers valued at Rs. 37,500/- under Section 111d of the Customs Act. Further, penalty was also proposed. 5. The Appellant filed reply to show-cause notice on 28/06/2011 denying the charges and reiterating that they have filed the Bill of Entry as per the import documents being Bill of Lading etc. and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oned the goods in view of the mistaken packing committed by the Shipper. 9. Under the facts and circumstances, there was no deliberate mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant-importer. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reject the Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before this Tribunal. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Akshay Anand inter alia urges that it is an admitted fact that the Shipper/Exporter M/s Pama and Company UK, inadvertently packed some other goods including branded Nokia Mobiles which were not ordered by the Appellant-importer. Appellant had also given a cogent explanation supported by letter of the Shipper which has not been found co....