TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, in the impugned order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. This penalty is based on the following finding :- I observe that Shri T.P. Rajmohan has successfully evaded contact with and apprehension by the Customs officers and has not responded to the Summons issued by the Customs. His conduct since the detection of the case not only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposal, however, was dropped by the Commissioner. Nevertheless, Id. Commissioner proceeded to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a). 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that M/s. Maluram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (MEPL, for short) had imported a consignment of hair care and dental care products from Korea and filed Bill of Entry dated 25-9-2003 for clearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid show-cause notice, wherein Shri K. Jayaram was alleged to have fabricated the invoice showing US$ 67,627.60 as the value of the imported goods and misdeclared the value in the Bill of Entry. In the SCN, the appellant was alleged to have abetted Shri K. Jayaram s offence. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner dropped the charge against Shri K. Jayaram but sustained the charge against the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds in Bill of Entry. He, however, exonerated Shri K. Jayaram from penal liability under Section 112(a). It is, thus, obvious that ld. Commissioner went into a misconception. Paragraphs 17 18 of his order would expose his error of judgment, which are reproduced here under :- 17. It appeared from the statement of Shri K. Jayaram, Managing Director of the importing company given before the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant was considered to be abettor, Shri K. Jayaram was the main offender in the Commissioner s mind. The offence, if any, of Shri K. Jayaram was overlooked and he was exonerated from penal liability. In the circumstances, there was no question of the appellant being held to have abetted the main offence. In other words, any penalty under Section 112(a) on the ground of abetment was not warr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
