9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achine from China under Bill of Entry No. 4489-87 dated 29.01.2014 through Cochin Port. The Bill of Entry was subjected to investigation by the Special Investigation Branch of the Cochin Custom House on suspicion that there was a possibility of mis-declaration of the value of the import consignment. As per the investigation appellant was examined and the statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. After completion of investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to the Importer-Company, M/s. Pyarelal Foams Pvt. Ltd. alleging undervaluation and demanding differential duty of customs and proposing penal action vide show-cause notice dated 19.09.2014. Thereafter after due process of law, the Joint Commissioner adjudicated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further submitted that the appellant has not personally benefited from the alleged act of omission and commission. 4. On the other hand the learned AR vehemently defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is perfectly valid. He further submitted that in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act the appellant who is a Director of the company has accepted the under-invoicing done by him. He has also stated the method of payment of duty in value to the supplier. He further submitted that once the company has admitted the undervaluation and has paid the penalty, the appellant who is the Director of the company and also looking after the affairs of the company is equally responsible and therefore imposing the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for submitting false and incorrect material. The case law quoted by the appellant is not relevant in the impugned case. I find that the original authority has rightly re-fixed the value of the impugned goods and penalty imposed are also reasonable." 5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Bosch Chassis Esystems India Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi (ICD TKD) reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-Del.) in support of his submission. According to me this case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and is distinguishable. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
