9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of Entry No. 6405 dt. 18.12.2007 by declaring the value of US$ 105 (AV Rs. 5119/-). The Custom authorities conducted scrutiny of documents which revealed that the importer had agreed to pay US$ 21,000 for the 21 Episodes to supplier / licensor. It was found that the importer has not included the licence fee in the Assessable value of the imported goods. They were issued Show Cause Notice alleging that they have attempted to clear the consignment by mis-declaring the value and that the appellant and its agent M/s DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. have jointly contravened the provision contained in section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and are therefore liable to pay penalty. It was proposed to enhance the declared value of Rs. 21,000/- in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignment but knowingly and deliberately they tried to clear the same under the guise of courier Bill of Entry which is meant for low valued goods. In the present case the value of the goods were mis-declared to evade duty what so ever the reason for non-declaration may be on the part of the importer. It may be deliberately or on the belief that the same need not be done. He has held that the breach of the provision would attract penalty even if there is guilty intention or not. The Adjudicating Authority thus rejected the declared value and enhanced the same to Rs. 8,59,488/-. He also ordered confiscation of goods under section 111 (m) with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He also imposed penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Redemption Fine and Penalty holding that even if the mis - declaration is unintentional than too the confiscation of goods, duty and Penalty would be imposable. The Appellant has contended that they have given clear instruction to M/s. DHL that they should detain the beta tapes to customs to allow them to file regular Bills of Entry. We find that nothing is appearing from the case records that the Appellant had given any such instruction to the Courier. The charge of mis-declaration is sustainable as the Appellant could not show any evidence that they had instructed/ informed courier about licence fee amount to be included in assessable value. We thus hold that the goods has been rightly confiscated. However we find that the duty amount ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
