- (1.)The only contention as advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Tribunal [2009 (238) E.L.T. 783 (Tribunal)] did not take into consideration the FOB in the form of contract which was placed on record by the Respondents along with the written submissions filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter even before the Tribunal.
(2.)We have considered para 10 of the judgment. We find from the judgment that the Appellants herein had misdeclared the PMV value of the goods. This is supported by the evidence on record. Once that be the case even if the FOB contract was on record, in our opinion, considering the finding recorded, the penalty cannot be said to be contrary to law. We, therefore, find no merits in this Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.