Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(6) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above ;

(A1) Now, therefore, that Shri Ankur Bhatia, Director of M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 and Shri Rony Abraham, Manager (Sales) M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 are hereby called upon to show cause to the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner of Customs (Import), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi - 110 020 within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 and/or 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above".

6 CUS/51007-51009 of 2019 (5) Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them on the aforesaid evaded/short paid Customs duty in terms of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 ;

(6) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above ;

(B1) Now, therefore, that Shri Ankur Bhatia, Director of M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 and Shri Rony Abraham, Manager (Sales) M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 are hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo (Import), New Custom House, Near I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi - 110 037 within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 and/or 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above".

7 CUS/51007-51009 of 2019 (5) Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them on the aforesaid evaded/short paid Customs duty in terms of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 ;

(6) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above ;

(C1) Now, therefore, that Shri Ankur Bhatia, Director of M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 and Shri Rony Abraham, Manager (Sales) M/s Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 are hereby called upon to show cause to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot Patparganj, Delhi within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 and/or 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in paras above".

11 CUS/51007-51009 of 2019

11. That the learned Commissioner‟s impugned order imposing penalty on appellant No. 1 under Section 114A and 114AA are not acceptable.

12. We have also heard the learned Departmental Representative who has vehemently supported the findings as given in the impugned order-in-original.

13. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the record of the appeal.

14. The issue for consideration before us in these proceedings is whether the consignments imported by the appellant vide 10 subject bills of entries were „Segway electrically operated personal balancing vehicle‟ in condition of completely knocked down condition classifiable under Chapter Heading 87119091 or whether these were CKD parts and assemblies of parts of electrically operated two wheelers for captive use as declared by the appellant in their import bills of entries whereunder they have classified the same under Chapter Heading 87149990 and whether the appellant are entitled for the benefit of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01/02/2002 (Sl. No. 345) and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17/03/2012 (Sl. No. 443 and 444); (ii) whether the appellants have mis-declared the description of the imported goods with an intent to evade customs duty ; (iii) whether appellant are liable to pay the differential amount of the customs duty under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and are also liable for penalty under provisions of Section 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is relevant to first have a glance at what is being imported by the appellant. It emerges from the investigation that the appellant No. II namely Shri Rony Abraham business head of the appellant No. I has submitted the samples of the import consignment which were in the „same form and condition‟ as were being imported by them before the officers as well as before Shri Vinod Soorma -