COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE Vs. VENUS INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Revenues appeal filed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 74/2004 Cus (B), dated 28 -4 -2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order -in -Original No. 9/2004 (DC), dated 29 -1 -2004 demanding differential duty and imposing penalty on the importer. However he has reduced the penalty on the CHA from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 1,000/ - which is not challenged by the Revenue. The matter had come up on the board for several occasions and the notice has been served on the Respondents. Despite several notices, the Respondent has not appeared. The allegation against the Respondent is pertaining to mis -declaration of value of mobile phones - model No. 8250 on the basis of contemporaneous imports of the same goods and demand of differential duty was not appropriate.

(2.) THE Respondent has taken the plea that the value and quantity in the Bill of Entry with regard to the said model was interchanged by a typographical mistake and the value declared in the invoice which is 125 US $ per mobile set was taken to calculate the duty and the correct duty was paid by them. Hence they contended that there was no issue of short payment. The Original authority did not accept the plea while the Commissioner (Appeals) after a detailed examination of the entire matter noted that there was a mistake committed in preparing the Bill of Entry which was of clerical nature, that too done by the CHA and not by the importer. He also relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Surya Roshini Ltd. [2002 (147) E.L.T. 84].

(3.) THE Revenue is aggrieved with the Commissioners (Appeals) order and has filed this appeal raising several grounds. It is submitted that the Order -in -Original is correct and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and the same is required to be set aside as the Commissioner (Appeals) has merely observed that the remaining 3 packages must have contained 60 pieces in total with each package containing 20 pieces. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that there was a mistake committed in preparing Bill of Entry which was of clerical nature that too done by the CHA and not by the importer. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals)s order is not correct and proper and also the citation referred to by him in the impugned order. Heard the learned DR in the matter.