2015 (12) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i S. Jain, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms. Saurabhi Sinha, Advocate and Shri S. Jain, DR for the respondent, we find that M/s. Sonal Enterprises imported cosmetics from China and filed bill of entry decl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of personal penalty. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the Director. 5. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 6. The appellant have taken a categorical stand that the goods were purchased on stock lot basis and at the transaction value reflected in the invoice. This fact is clear from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uential-wise and having not produced any evidence of contemporaneous nature to reflect upon the lower value of the imported goods, the adoption of market price cannot be held to be a method in accordance with law. As such, we find no justification in the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X