2022 (4) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as undervaluation and since the appellant had purchased the goods imported by M/s. Indomass Trades N Trans Pvt. Ltd., the appellant is a beneficiary out of the offence of undervaluation. Accordingly, penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed. 2. Shri A.K. Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has no role either in the import of the subject goods or in the valuation of the goods. Appellant is merely a buyer of the imported goods; therefore, no penalty can be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. He further submitted that entire allegation against the appellant was made on the basis of some statements of Shri K.V. Venugopal of M/s. Excel India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. J....

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 is clearly established; hence, the penalty under Section 112 was correctly imposed. 4.1. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that there is no dispute that there is no admission by the appellant as regards the allegation made in the show-cause notice. This has been admitted by the adjudicating authority in para 52 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below:- 52. I find that Shri Rajesh Jain has not made any implicatory admissions in his statement. However, the statements of Shri K.V. Venugopal, M/s.Excel India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Jayachandran, M/s. Cafco Freight Systems graphically narrate the involvement of Shri Rajesh Jain in the imports and also have id....