9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 286 - AT - CustomsValuation of the goods - Smuggling activities - (i) Grey metal powder suspected to be Iridium, (ii) Grey metal powder suspected to be Ruthenium, (iii) Micro SD Memory cards, (iv) Stone beads ('Chaton') and (v) Branded watches - courier company - Quantum of redemption fine - Penalty - HELD THAT - We find that it is a fact admitted by the appellants that all the four passengers who were intercepted at the Airport were carrying the goods in question and were engaged in the activity of smuggling of the said goods into India without payment of any Customs duties thereon. Further, we observe that Meraj Ahmed was engaged in the activity of transportation of these smuggled goods, as evidenced from the records placed before us. On going through the valuation adopted by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned order, we find that the valuation adopted by the ld. adjudicating authority is through proper analysis of the best value available of the goods seized except Ruthenium wherein in the Remarks column it has been stated by the ld. adjudicating authority that the value of this smuggled goods has been arrived at by adding duty quantum, overhead and profit margin for this very rare and precious smuggled item. We are not in agreement with the said observation made by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned order. As the quantum of duty along with overheads and profit margin cannot be taken as the value of the said goods, Thus, the value of the said goods has to be taken as Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per kg., which is in the range arrived at by the ld. adjudicating authority i.e., Rs.2.82 lakhs to Rs.3.38 lakhs per kg. Accordingly, the duty has to be re-quantified which is payable by the appellants. We also find that redemption fine imposed on the appellants for release of the seized goods is justified. The penalties imposed are also found to be justified. In view of this, we do not find any merit on these grounds in the appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals in respect of quantum of redemption fine and imposition of penalties are dismissed. The ld. Adjudicating authority is directed to re-calculate the duty payable by the appellants, as discussed, if they so desire to get release of the goods. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of the goods in question. 2. Quantum of redemption fine. 3. Penalty imposed on the appellants. Summary: Issue 1: Valuation of the Goods All the appellants challenged the valuation of the goods in question. The goods included metal powders suspected to be Iridium and Ruthenium, memory cards, stone beads, and branded watches. The valuation was based on the metal bulletin issued by the Director General of Valuation, C.B.E.C., NIDB data, purchase invoices, and website details. The Tribunal found that the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was through proper analysis except for Ruthenium, where the value was arrived at by adding duty quantum, overhead, and profit margin. The Tribunal disagreed with this method and decided that the value of Ruthenium should be Rs. 3,00,000/- per kg, which falls within the range of Rs. 2.82 lakhs to Rs. 3.38 lakhs per kg as determined by the adjudicating authority. The duty was directed to be re-quantified accordingly. Issue 2: Quantum of Redemption FineThe appellants also challenged the quantum of redemption fine. The adjudicating authority had allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of applicable Customs duty and a redemption fine of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal found the redemption fine imposed on the appellants for the release of the seized goods to be justified and upheld the same. Issue 3: Penalty ImposedPenalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- were imposed on each of the four passengers who were apprehended and on Meraj Ahmed, the owner of M/s. Mahalaxmi Air Cargo Enterprise. The Tribunal found the penalties imposed to be justified and dismissed the appeals on this ground. Conclusion:The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-calculate the duty payable by the appellants based on the revised valuation of Ruthenium if they desired to get the release of the goods. The appeals were disposed of on these terms. Order Pronounced:(Order pronounced in the open court on 03.05.2024)
|
