TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member, (T)]. - This is an appeal filed against OIO No. 31/01 (SIB), dated 12-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. 2. The appellant filed Bill of Entry wherein the declaration made was "motors for compressors". However, on examination it was found that the goods were actually compressors for air-conditioners. Prima facie, there was mis-declaration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order fixed the value of the compressor imported at US $ 135 as against the declared value of US $30. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 9,43,447/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-. He also held that the mis-declaration of value is established. The appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order. 3. Sri. Laxminarayana, learned Advocate appeared for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 75 (T) Valuation (Customs) - Enhancement of value - Identical Goods - Bill of Entry, relied upon by Department to enhance value, not available on record, hence, it cannot be concluded that goods imported under such Bill of Entry were identical to goods imported by appellants - Further, goods being imported at different commercial levels, and in different quantities, cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR pointed out that the present case is a clear case of misdeclaration of description of the goods and as well as value. It is true that the Mumbai Bills of Entry are not forthcoming. However, the computer printouts indicate that the goods imported in Mumbai were identical and therefore the contemporaneous value should be adopted. 6. We have gone through the rival contentions. The Revenue is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported by the appellants. Applying the above ratio of the Tribunal's decision we find that the OIO has no merits in as far as demand of duty is concerned. Since the appellants had not contested the mis-declaration of the description of the goods the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) is justified. Hence, we set aside the demand of duty. Since the duty is set aside, the penalty is leviable onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
