TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty and mis-declaration of MRP was a bonafide mistake on the part of their Customs Broker Agent - Held that:- there is no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of appellant. As the importer has paid the differential duty and interest before issuance of the Order-in-Original, so it is found to be a fit case for reduction of redemption fine. It is also seen that the importer had paid 25% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value. The importer had declared MRP of ₹ 14,590 per LED TV, whereas, it was found on examination that the MRP price affixed on the packages was ₹ 19,990 per piece. Hence, the differential duty of ₹ 6,55,682 was demanded and the matter adjudicated vide the impugned OIO. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal which confirmed the OIO, the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Chartered Accountant submits that they have paid the redemption fine and also 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days of the receipt of the Order-in-Original, since they were in urgent need of the goods. However, he submits that there was no intention to evade duty and mis-declaration of the MRP was a bonafide mistake and therefore, contests the confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of both the sides, it is clear that there was mis-declaration of the MRP value on the Bill of Entry. Though the importer has contended that it is a bonafide mistake, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said claim. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 5. However, we find that the importer has paid the differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
