TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r piece in the Bill of Entry has been shown on the lower side by mistake – liability were imposed upon the appellants but the amount of fine and penalty was reduced – in the Bill of Entry value was not correctly declared by the importer attracting the violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act – appeal decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 3724 of 2012-SM - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. The reason for such a request for change was shown to be a communication gap between the supplier of the goods and the importer. The request of change in the price was not considered by the original authority and the case was adjudicated by the original authority vide his Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2012 under which the goods were ordered to be confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of Rs.7,03,632/-. On this difference in assessable value, short levy comes to Rs.38,323/-. I find this is a fact on record that appellant themselves have informed the department vide their letter dated 27.8.2012 that value per piece in the Bill of Entry has been shown on the lower side by mistake. But this is also a fact that in the Bill of Entry value was not correctly declared by the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
