2001 (12) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to produce manufacturer s invoice for the goods and for non-production of manufacturer s invoice, the prices mentioned in the supplier s invoices were rejected and the value of the goods fixed by the Customs authorities based on local market enquiry. The value of the goods were enhanced and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of value. The importers were given option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fines and penalties. The order portion of the adjudication order is as follows:- I, therefore, order to enhance the value of the - (i) personal deodorants from US$ 0.18/pc for 75 ml. Pack to US$ 0.24 and order to enhance the declared value from Rs. 4,92,304/- to Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... each B/E) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The option of the redemption is to be exercised within 30 days of the receipt of the order. 2. The appellants challenged the adjudication order before Commissioner (Appeals) without much success, inasmuch as the order in appeal only reduced redemption fines and penalties. Hence the present appeals. 3. The main contention of the appellants in the present appeals is that there was no reasonable basis at all for enhancement of the values for assessment of the goods to custom duty or for confiscation of the goods. It has been submitted that while the impugned order stated that the assessable value has been determined based on market enquiry, the copy of the report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onfiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalties, the learned Counsel submitted that actions were taken on the ground that the value of the imported goods have misdeclared. The learned Counsel pointed out that the charge of misdeclaration is based merely on the market survey of prices and there was no evidence whatsoever to show that the value of the imported goods was higher than the value indicated in the invoices sent by the supplier of the goods or that there was any kind of under hand dealing relating to price between the importers and their supplier. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the confiscation of the goods is also required to be set aside in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. As against t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X