TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CL also was in the similar line without ruling out import vegetable oil. Appellant was confronted with the test report and was called upon to explain why valuation of the goods shall not be disturbed by upward revision. 2. Material facts noticed by investigation as depicted in para 23 of adjudication order were as under:- (i) M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar, the importer indulged in fraudulent trade and import of Fatty Acid and Vegetable Oil by mis-declaring the description as Vegetable Fatty Acid as well as its value. (ii) Sh. Manoj Gupta, Prop. of M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar, Delhi had finalized the contract of purchase, approved the quality and prices of the said goods so imported by his firm M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar which confirmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signment was not fatty acid but vegetable oil. Investigation found that one Shri Manoj Kumar was mastermind behind the import for fraudulent declaration of the description of the goods, so also undervaluation was the methodology adopted. Following allegations were accordingly made against the appellant. (a) that Sh. Manoj Gupta was the mastermind behind the fraudulent import of Palm Fatty Acid on undervaluation and Crude Oil in the guise of Vegetable Fatty Acid through his firm M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar by presenting fabricated import documents so as to manage the import of goods undervalued and mis-declared them to evade customs duty. (b) that Sh. Manoj Gupta, proprietor of M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar fraudulently imported consignmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the goods covered under said Bill of Entry No. 635823 dt. 08.10.2007 appear to be liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act 1962, read with provision of section 3 & 11 of Foreign Trade (Development & regulation) Act, 1992 rule 11 & 14 of the foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and rule 3 of Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order 1993 being mis-declared in respect of their description and value with willful fraudulent intention to evade customs duty. (h) that by adopting aforementioned fraudulent modus operandi, M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar attempted to evade customs duty amounting to Rs.13,18,177/- leviable on such imports by way of willful mis-statement and suppressio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrough and by his acts of omission and commission as discussed hereinbefore, rendered the goods imported under Bill of Entry 635823 dt. 08.10.2007, liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, Sh. Manoj Gupta was also concerned with carrying removing keeping, depositing, deposition, selling and dealing with the said imported goods which he knew and had reasons to believe that they were liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, it appears that Sh. Manoj Gupta is also liable to penalty under section 112 (a) & (b) and/or 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. [Emphasis supplied] 4. The appellant could not defend its case against the allegation made by customs as to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntainer of Tariff Value which was fixed at USD 481 PMT. (iii) Differential customs duty of Rs.3,26,827/- was demanded under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest payable thereon in terms of the provisions of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Penalty of Rs.3,26,827/- was imposed on M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar, Hisar under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) No penalty was imposed on Shri Manoj Gupta, proprietor of M/s Manoj Kumar Sanjay Kumar. 5. Appellant is not present today. The matter relates to 2008. Interim order was passed on 18.11.2001 waiving pre-deposit on the ground that goods worth Rs.3,26,827/- was lying with the department. Already 4 years have expired. It is not proper to keep the appea....