Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1113 - AT - CustomsImposition of Penalty u/s 112(a)/114AA of CA - import of goods and sale on High seas sale - mis-declaration of value - short payment of duty - Section 108 of CA - HELD THAT:- Once the person who has filed the Bill of Entry has admitted and paid the differential duty on account of misdecalaration of value, the value as determined in the show cause notice and by the settlement commission will become the value under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. We do not find any merits in the submissions of the Appellant that the Commissioner should have again considered and re-determined the value, as per the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Once the value has been found misdeclared the goods become liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the person misdeclaring or abetting in such misdeclaration is liable to penalty under section 112(a). Appellants Shri Kaushal A Shah and Shri Jiten Shah are responsible for issuance of the invoice misdeclaring the value. This invoice was the document which was the basis for filling the B/E misdeclaring the value of imported goods. Once it is established that Shri Kaushal A Shah and Shri Jiten Shah were responsible for filing or causing to file the documents misdeclaring the value of goods, section 114AA gets attracted. It is not even the case in the adjudication order that the penalties for the same offence and under the same provision has been imposed upon the proprietor and proprietorship concerns. The adjudication order itself refrains from imposing penalty under Section 112(a), on the proprietors as penalties under the said section have been imposed on proprietorship firms. Appeal dismissed.
|