9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Commissioner (Customs), the respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal which was heard along with the appeal filed by the respondent against assessment of duty at higher amount. The Tribunal though confirmed the valuation adopted by the department for the purpose of levy of duty, cancelled the confiscation order for the reason that there is no misdeclaration of value justifying confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The department filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal cancelling confiscation order and release on payment of redemption fine for the reason that there is misdeclaration of value. Held that-Respondent has not produced evidence for the payment of even the invoice value. Tribunal’s orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was heard along with the appeal filed by the respondent against assessment of duty at higher amount. The Tribunal [2005 (181) E.L.T. 56 (Tri. - Bang.)] though confirmed the valuation adopted by the department for the purpose of levy of duty, cancelled the confiscation order for the reason that there is no misdeclaration of value justifying confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The respondent appears to have accepted the order of the Tribunal confirming valuation. However, department filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal cancelling confiscation order and release on payment of redemption fine for the reason that there is misdeclaration of value. 2. While the case of the appellant is that misdeclara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of invoice value by the respondent to the Singapore supplier, the Tribunal cancelled the confiscation order. In our view, it is illogical that a person who is a party to undervaluation and sale of car at lower than the actual price will give evidence to the department to prove the case that the invoice raised by him on the respondent is a bogus one and that they received underhand payment of the differential price. It is also to be noted that the respondent has not produced evidence for payment of even the invoice value. The only reasonable inference possible is that it is an arranged transaction between the Singapore supplier and the respondent for import of the car by misdeclaring it's actual value in the invoice. We, therefore, reverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
