2025 (5) TMI 2013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umar, Advocates for the appellant. Shri Girijesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER Shri Prakash Chand Sharma [appellant], a customs broker, filed this appeal to assail the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on him under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 [Customs Act] for abetment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized repres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [Valuation Rules] read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and re-determined the assessable value and confirmed the demand of differential duty. He also held that the goods imported by the importer were liable for confiscation under section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act for mis-declaring val....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Customs Act 1962 is not imposable and only a token penalty under Section 112 would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice". 5. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner himself recorded that the appellant had no role, but held that the appellant had "unknowingly abetted" or was instrumental in the activity of the importer and, therefore, imposed penalty under section 112 of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontemporaneous imports by others based on which he can reject the transaction value and also re-determine the value through other methods. Neither the importer nor the customs broker has the authority under the Valuation Rules to re-determine the assessable value after rejecting the transaction value. The importer is expected to correctly declare the transaction value as per the documents and the ....