9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962. The appellant was allowed an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 6.5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 65,000 was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Further, the value of the goods was increased to approximately Rs. 33 lakhs for the purpose of assessing the goods to Customs duty. 2. The relevant facts leading to the passing of the order are that the appellant sought the clearance of the goods as scrap and declared a value of about Rs. 22 lakhs. This worked out to a unit value of US $ 1030 MT. The declaration of value and description was based on invoice issued by the supplier, namely M/s. Universal Impex Corporation, UAE. 3. Examination of the goods by the Customs showed that the goods were not scrap b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared with regard to description and value making them liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and (m) of Customs Act, 1962. Having rejected the declaration, the impugned order proceeded to fix the assessable value at the rate of US $ 1700 MT for tubes and US $ 1600 MT for bushes and to confiscate the goods etc. 5. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned SDR for the Revenue. The contention of the appellant is that the goods had been purchased by him only as scrap and the price declaration was the transaction value. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the goods have to be assessed to duty at the transaction value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir shipment from Antwerp to Mumbai. The Country of Origin certificate issued from Russia where the goods originated, the examination report in Germany (transit) and the examination report of Indian Customs are all unanimous that the goods are serviceable tubes and bushes. In these circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the findings in the impugned order that the description of the goods was mis-declared. Once the nature of the goods has been mis-declared, it follows that the value declared also cannot be accepted. Therefore, the order cannot be faulted for re-fixing the assessable value in accordance with the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules. The appellants also have not shown any material that the revision of value made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
