9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Oder per : Dr. S.N. Busi, Member (T)]. In the present appeal, the appellant M/s Krishna Trading Co., Ahmedabad has challenged the order-in-appeal dated 6-10-1998 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The issue relates to valuation of the impugned goods and imposition of fine and penalty in respect of the same. 2. Shri A.K. Chatterjee, learned Consultant for the appellant, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Consultant further submits that the Revenue ought to have accepted the transaction value in the absence of imports at higher price of identical or similar goods. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Customs vs. International Export Inc. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal). As regards the imposition of fine, learned Consultant submits that it is doub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms imported are fancy items in respect of which no import licence was produced. As regards imposition of penalty of Rs. 47,000/-, Shri Roy submits that having regard to the nature of offence committed, the same is quite reasonable. 4. We have heard both sides. We find that as per the Customs Valuation Rules, the valuation has to be done sequentially and it is not permissible to jump to Rule 8 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce import licence. The appellant concedes contravention of the import policy but seriously contended the charge of undervaluation. We find that the method of valuation adopted by the Revenue is improper. As such, impugned goods are liable to confiscation only on the ground of non-production of import licence. We are, therefore, of the view that imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5,87,000/- is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
