2026 (4) TMI 1100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shenzhen Xinyaongyonghong Import and Export Trade Limited Company, China under Invoice No.HC-1 and Bill of Lading No. HLCUSZX1607AXKT4 both dated 21.07.2016. The Bill of Entry got self assessed at the rate of Rs.74,89,588/- and duty of Rs.18,04,358/- was paid by the importer-appellant. However, based on the intelligence, the goods were examined by the officers of SIIB, ICD (Import), TKD, New Delhi on 27.10.2016 in presence of two independent witnesses and F-Card Holders of M/s. Karan Logistics. The goods were found mis-declared in quantity and were found to be of an Indian Origin. Pursuant to subsequent searches and the statements of all concerned recorded that the Show Cause Notice No. 10/121/2016 dated 25.04.2017 was served upon the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s further mentioned that the appellant vide their reply to the show cause notice dated 06.06.2017 had brought the aforementioned fact to the notice of the department. In addition had requested cross-examination of the person investigated and whose statements were recorded during investigation. But no such opportunity was given to the appellant. The order of imposition of penalty when the appellant has not committed any offence in relation to import of the said consignment and had no intention to evade the customs duty while getting the consignment cleared, is therefore liable to be set aside. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntry was not filed under first check nor the goods were ever requested for warehousing. The order of Assistant Commissioner directing warehousing due to noticed misdeclaration in Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2016 is held to have been misunderstood by the appellant to be an order under Section 49 of the Customs Act. The plea of appellant is held to be factually incorrect. 6. I observe that appellant has not produced any document which may falsify the said findings. Even the Bill of Entry is not the part of record. It is not possible for me to hold that the Bill of Entry dated 22.10.2016 was In-Bond Bill of Entry requesting warehousing instead of clearance for home consumption. The letter dated 16.08.2016 is also not the part of record. It is....