2024 (1) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly stated, the appellant filed two Bills of Entry no. 3048586 dated 31.08.2017 and 306747 dated 1.09.2017 under self assessment scheme for goods declared as Christmas Lights Bulb, LED and Chain Lights etc. On the basis of information that the importer is indulging in evading customs duty by mis-declaration of goods, investigation was initiated and on 100% examination of the goods, it was found that there was misdeclaration in respect of number of cartons/number of pieces/number of bulbs in light chain and as against the declared gross weight of 29847 kgs, the actual weight of both the containers was found to be 42170 Kgs. The goods were accordingly seized in terms of seizure memo dated 8.09.2017, under Section 110 of the Customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs.1,20,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a)(ii) and penalty of Rs.12 lakhs under Section 114 AA of the Act. Said order was challenged by the appellant, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Having heard both the sides and perused the records, we find that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant himself in the order reported in 2023 (7) TMI 967- CESTAT, New Delhi. The facts of the case are absolutely identical where on the basis of an intelligence the goods were examined and were found to be 42% more than what was declared in the bil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and also on the decision in Surjit Singh Chhabra versus Union of India - 1997(89) ELT 646(SC), laying down the principle that what is admitted need not be proved and the confession even though retracted is an admission and binds the appellant. 7. Considering the repeated attempts of the appellant to fraudulently evade the liability of customs duty by deliberately mis-declaring the actual quantity of the goods, we reject the contention of the appellant that no intentional mis-declaration has been made by them and they knowingly did not make any false and incorrect statement with respect to the quantity and value of the goods. The plea taken by the appellant that the error was on the part of the supplier who sent excess quantity, is absolu....