TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 1507/2002AA - Final Order Nos. A/1555-1557/2007-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 20-6-2007 - [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)] - These are the appeals against the order of the Commissioner No. KDL/COMMR/33/2002 dated 10-10-2002. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: (a) The appellant M/s. Success Engineering is an exporter based in Hong Kong and made shipments of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .20 lakhs and they were also imposed penalties of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (e) The other appellants are the CHA firm and the partner of CHA firm who have filed documents for clearance of the consignments. By the above mentioned order, a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was imposed as penalty on the CHA firm and Rs.20 lakhs on the partner. 4. The ld. Advocate for appellants su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, there was no need for issue of anti-dated invoices. But for the investigation commenced by the DRI, the consignments could have been cleared giving the invoice for US $ 550/MT. Having submitted the documents through the Bank for certain value, to supply invoice at a lower value to the importer does not seem to be a bona fide exercise. Test results show that the materials imported were "prime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the firm, no evidence showing knowledge on their part to declare a lower price with a view to wrongly avail benefits has been produced and therefore no intention to violate customs law on their part is proved. Failure/negligence if any on their part, does not justify penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the appeals by them deserve to be allowed. 8. Thus the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
