2017 (3) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D.N. Panda Ld. counsel vehemently opposes the assessable value determined by Customs on the ground that neither there was any contemporaneous import nor any material on record to show that there was mis-declaration of the value. No doubt that there were certain extra quantity found during the course of examination. But that may be subject to penalty and does not mean that Customs have power to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... os.   4431 Nos. Appellant declared the goods as cordless phones of 4413 nos. There was a discrepancy in the quantity imported. 5. The second basis of issuance of show cause notice was that one Mr. Naresh Chandan was the importer of similar goods for his different firms in the immediate past i.e. four months prior to the present import made vide Bill of Entry No.422157 dt. 2.9.2002. Previo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by above two concerns were different from the goods covered by present Bill of Entry dt. 2.9.2002. Thus mis-declaration of quantity and value is established. 7. Looking into the assessable value determined at Rs. 18,85,430.75 and considering that the goods were not branded goods, it is considered proper that imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) may not be unjust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X