was duly invoiced and said value of undeclared/mis-declared goods indicated in the declaration made no case for demand of additional duty, no case for any offence can be made out against the appellant. I am not in agreement with the contentions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that it was for the appellant to seek the charge report/examination report on basis of which the charge having being made by the department. While the examination report indeed be so, resultantly it has not led to any enhancement in duty liability and the transaction value (TV) as declared has been held as the correct TV. The declared invoice value having been held to be the correct transaction value, no case of imposition of penalty arises, all the more so as no additional duty liability has been affixed on the importer. Further the fact of nonsupplying of the investigation report of the SIIB (Import) is indeed a serious flaw and violation of natural justice. On this basis alone the order is liable to be set aside. I am thus of the view that there is no merit in the claim of the department that certain goods were not declared. The mis-declaration, if any , as the department does not challenge the transaction value at best is a mere omission and no more than a technical offence, and the case of the importer that the value of all imported goods were duly invoiced strongly supports the premise. Thus, there is no case for the department to subject the appellant to any penal consequences. It is further noted from records that quantity of the components corresponding to the empty cartridge said to be not declared were duly specified in the packing list, and so also for the black toner powder contained cardboard cartons. The department has nowhere made out a case that the importer was required to declare separately each and every component of the empty cartridges under import/CKD condition. The fact that there is no duty demand despite alleged mis-declaration completely substantiates the case of the appellant.
