TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a shipping bill for export of cut and polished diamonds. On examination, the impugned goods were found to be overvalued. The ascertained value was US $ 20,811.55 as against the declared value of US $ 2,61,336.25 (equivalent to Rs. 1,07,50,000/-). Thus, the impugned goods were found to be over invoiced to the extent of US $ 2,40,524.70 (equivalent to Rs. 98,95,196/-). As recorded by the Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable nor the same were being exported under claim of drawback. The question for decision is whether the impugned goods can be considered as prohibited goods. 3. This question has been gone into in great detail by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. C.C., Delhi - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) and the legal position is now well settled. Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 define ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the argument of the appellants that the impugned goods cannot be treated as prohibited goods or that the mischief of the Section 113(i) is not attracted in respect of the same. 4. As regards the amount of fine imposed and penalty levied, considering the high value of the goods and the extent of overinvoicing, we find that the Adjudicating Commissioner has taken a very lenient view. We, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
