TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported used printing, cutting machines from Japan on payment of duty. Investigations by DRI revealed that the appellants undervalued the imported goods by advising their suppliers to undervalue the goods and submitting the undervalued invoice to Customs for payment of duty. Accordingly, an offence case was booked and the case was adjudicated by the lower authority vide OIO No.12/2011-12-Cus. Adjn. Dated 30.11.2011, wherein the assessable value was re-determined and the differential duty demand was confirmed along with interest and the impugned goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 81,467/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and further imposed a penalty of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Customs Act, 1962 and sustained the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that both the lower authorities have not given any reasons for imposing redemption fine to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. The adjudicating authority had not ascertained the market value of the goods prior to imposing the said quantum of redemption fine and even the lower appellate authority has also confirmed the redemption fine without ascertaining the market value which cannot be done in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Mansi Impex reported in 2011 (270) ELT 631. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the original authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents as well as the statements of the Proprietor and thereafter, re-determined the value of imported goods which has been accepted by the Proprietor and has paid the duty. Further, I find that as per the proviso to Section 114A of the Act, the lower appellate authority ought to have set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act but instead of doing that the appellate authority has set aside the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act and has wrongly sustained the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, I hold that imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) is set aside and penalty under Section 114A is sustained and upheld. As far as imposition of redempti....