9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal glassware from Hongkong and filed Bill of Entry dated 7-2-2002 and declared CIF valued at U.S. $ 5270.04; that show cause notice dated 6-7-2000 alleging, inter alia, under-valuation of goods was issued, that on the request made by them Commissioner, ordered release of 50% of the goods on the payment of the admitted duty in full; that the Adjudicating Authority under the impugned Order, enhanced the C F value to U.S. $ 6181.62 in respect of eight items only and accepted the declared value in respect of remaining 53 items; confiscated the said 8 items valued at Rs. 2,70,754.96 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh only and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh besides finalizing the assessment. The learned Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the redemption fine has been imposed without any discussion about the margin of profit. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Ismail Kunhi Abdulla v. C.C., Mumbai, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 157 (T) wherein the Tribunal while setting aside the absolute confiscation, observed that in the absence of such details as to the margin of profit, we are unable to fix the redemption fine, think it proper to be determined by the Commissioner. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri A.K. Mondal, learned D.R., reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasized that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscation of the impugned goods on account of mis-declaration of values and the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also not brought on record any evidence to prove that the value declared by them was the correct one. We agree with the learned D.R. that the Commissioner had not passed on the burden to prove on the Appellants since the Commissioner has only observed in the impugned Order that the Appellants had also not produced the invoice raised by the manufacturer on the supplier at Hongkong in support of the value declared by them. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner in enhancing the value of the impugned 8 items. We also find no merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the penalty cannot be imposed as assessments were provisional. The show cause notice was issued to the Appellants on 6-7-2002 under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
