2026 (9) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing differential duty, which was not disputed by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also upheld penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the appellant had filed all the Bills of Entry with the invoices showing lower values in order to evade payment of customs duty which was detected by the customs officer only after thorough investigation. Aggrieved by these penalties, the appellant is in appeal. 2. The Learned Counsel submits that they do not contest the undervaluation; hence, redetermination of value and demand of differential duty is not contested; however, contests the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bill of Entry No.8126743 dated 09.01.2017 and USD 13,060 (C&F) for the Bill of Entry No. 8135317 dated 10.01.2017 and the value declared was a clear case of undervaluation and accordingly, based on the documents unearthed during investigation, value was redetermined as USD 46,569.23 (C&F) and USD 25,728.69 (C&F). Accordingly, customs duty was redetermined at Rs. 9,62,588 and Rs. 5,31,545/- on the revised value which was accepted and admitted by the appellant. Similarly for Bill of Entry No.7820066 dated 14.12.2016, the value was redetermined in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which was also admitted by the appellant and the demand of differential duty of Rs.6,20,291/- was confirmed with applicable interest. The above demands ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 is clearly established, hence the same is upheld. Section 114AA penalty is imposed for false or incorrect material in the transaction of any business, hence to state that it is only meant for exports as claimed by the appellant is misplaced, hence the same is rejected. This aspect of imposition of penalty under Section 114AA for the imported goods as claimed by the Revenue has been upheld on imported goods where similar cases of undervaluation in the case of M/s. Burberry International vs. Commissioner of Customs (supra) and in the case of M/s. Powercon Electricals, A.V. Joseph and Reshmi Sanjith vs. Commissioner of Customs (supra); hence, the same is justified. It is also to be n....