TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Order-in-Original No. 24/2006- Cus dated 26-10-2006 by which the CHA has been imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. In Para 15 of the impugned order, it has been recorded that the importer, M/s ZZ Trading Establishment, in his statement has implicated its Proprietor, namely Shri Rafiq Iqbal as having knowledge of the undervaluation of the goods. In Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined from the transaction. He submits that Shri Rafiq Iqbal in his statement to DRI has categorically denied having admitted about the collusion with the importer. He points out that the earlier statement of Shri Fiaz Ahmed Shaik recorded on 12-3-2004 by S.I.O., DRI, wherein he categorically stated the aspects of undervaluation of imported tyre were known only to him and to his father. In his subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther evidence other than the answer given in Question No. 8 as recorded above to implicate the appellant. Therefore he submits that the penalty imposed on the appellant is unjustified and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned DR submits that the appellant was aware of the value of the similar goods which were imported in Nava Seva (Bombay) Port. Therefore this knowledge is sufficient to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of import and various other factors. As can be seen from the statement dated 12-3-2004 of the importer, he has categorically stated that the aspects of undervaluation of imported tyres were known only to him and his father and other partners were not aware of the aspects of undervaluation. Therefore it cannot be said that Shri Fiaz Ahmed Shailk had spoken the truth. Such contradictory statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as categorically denied that he had knowledge of undervaluation and that he has abetted or colluded with the importer in the act of undervaluation. There is no reason to disbelief his statement as there was no evidence placed by the Revenue to the contrary. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty on CHA is not justified and the same is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
