TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind reasonable ground for adjourning the case and accordingly deciding the case after hearing the learned Authorised Representative of the Department. 2. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 2,64,250/- and proposing penalty on them on the ground that they have misdeclared the value of the consignment for 21000 pieces of watch cases with metal band imported under Bill of Entry No. 1273 dated 11-9-97. During investigation Shri O.P. Agarwal, Proprietor of the appellant firm stated that he declared the CIF value of the goods as per invoice received by him from the supplier. On investigation, it was found that the supplier of the goods had declared much higher export price in the export documents submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed by supplier of goods with Hong Kong Customs was for two items namely; (1) 21,000 pieces of metal watch cases and (ii) 21000 metal watch strap. The appellant imported 21,000 watch cases with metal band. Thus, the declaration filed by the supplier of the goods does not covers the goods imported by the appellant. On the question of filing declaration subsequent to dispatch of goods, the adjudicating authority has recorded that as per Hong Kong customs regulations the exporter was permitted to file export declaration within 14 days. This is not based on any statutory authority. It was also pleaded that neither the copies of correspondence were supplied nor any documents to show that permission to Indian customs for use of the declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged by producing the alleged declaration. Assessment of Bill Entry is an appealable order. Since no appeal has been filed by the department against the assessment order of Bill of Entry, the same has attained finality. The demand of differential duty is not sustainable and imposition of penalty equal to duty in terms of Section 114A is not sustainable as this section is attracted when the demand is confirmed by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. In the present case, goods were examined physically 100%. There is no case for short levy and accordingly provision of Section 28AB are wrongly invoked. Since there is no suppression of facts on mis-declaration of value, the goods cannot be held liable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... metal strap are both in declaration as well as in the invoice. Quantities are also same. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that these are not the same goods which were exported cannot be accepted. The appellant had also claimed that the adjudicating authority had given a finding that in Hong Kong export declaration can be filed within 14 days after export of the goods is not based on any legal proposition. In this respect, Revenue produced the letter from Consulate General of India in Hong Kong where the extract of the order issued by the Hong Kong Government regarding export declaration were reproduced which is as under:- Under the Import and Export (Registration) Regulations, Chapter 60, every person who imports or exports any artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
