TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the appellant that they were under bonafide belief, cannot be accepted. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.C/162/2005 - FINAL ORDER No.40371/2014 - Dated:- 4-7-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ For the Appellant : Shri Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate (Proxy) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the Ld. A.R on behalf of the respondent, and on perusal of records, we find that Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Imports) denied the benefit of Exemption No.21/2002 dt.1.3.2000 (Sl.No.207) for import of Electrical Steel Sheets in Coils-Seconds . He confiscated the goods and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Bill of Entry and declared the goods CRGO Electrical Steel Sheets in Coils in prime quality and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty. On examination of goods, it was found to be seconds. Thus, there is no dispute of misdeclaration of goods and confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified. The relevant portion of the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts of Prime CRGO Electrical Steel Coil has varied from US$ 1061/MT to US$ 1244/MT averaging above US$ 1145/MT during the month of March 2004, the month of the present import s evident from the Computer Print Out of list and details of transacted prices of imports at various Indian Ports as compiled by the Directorate General of Valuation, Customs, Mumbai. As against that, the declared price of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tever was stated above in the Bill of Entry were true and therefore it was the importer's burden to make the correct entries. All the above aspects necessarily indicate that the importer's version is not bonafide. 5. We find that the appellant had not refuted the finding of the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that they were under bonafide belief, cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
