import made the appellant liable to adjudication.
17.4 The appellant did not dispute composition of imports. Therefore, classification of the misdeclared quantity ... liability in respect of the imports since those were not deliberately misdeclared imports. The appellant had no intention to make any misdeclaration for the reason
opened, especially when there is no misdeclaration on behalf of the importer and no appeal having been filed by the Revenue against such assessment ... rules of interpretation has concluded that the appellants have imported two machines by misdeclaring the same as one number high power X-ray machine. Rule
notice on 24.6.2004 to the appellant and another importer (M/s. Vipin Enterprises who had also imported several consignments of remelted copper ingots from ... Section 28 of the Customs Act on the ground that the importers had misdeclared and suppressed material facts about the value of copper scrap being
Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd. [appellants in Appeal No. C/230/2007] had imported 'steel skull scrap' claiming the same to be classifiable under ... Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as the importer] had misdeclared the goods in the Bill of Entry and that the goods was more
read with Section 14(1) the importer is required to declare the true RSP. The importer intentionally misdeclared the contents of the Bills of Entry ... revealed from the documents was known to the importer. Correspondingly the equivalent penalty under Section 114A of Rs. 15,33,382/- is imposable. The second
penalty of rupees one lakh only is also levied on the importer for misdeclaring the description to obtain clearance under concessional rate of duty
value should be used to determine the value of the imported goods when there are more than one transaction value of identical goods. Further ... value should be the value of assessing the goods imported. The burden to prove misdeclaration of prices in the Bill of Entry lies
importer or exporter. In the present case, all the appellants are importer. Section 2 (26) of the Customs Act, 1962, defined importer in relation ... importer. There is no dispute that the appellants are importers. So, it is required to be considered as to whether the importers/appellants had committed
Such goods were subject to licence. Present imports were made without licence and misdeclared. This also calls for upholding the adjudication order. We order accordingly ... Such goods were subject to licence. Present imports were made without licence and misdeclared. This also calls for upholding the adjudication order. We order accordingly
importer or exporter. In the present case, all the appellants are importer. Section 2 (26) of the Customs Act, 1962, defined importer in relation ... importer. There is no dispute that the appellants are importers. So, it is required to be considered as to whether the importers/appellants had committed
