9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue as Rs. 1,33,97,117/- and paid Customs duty of Rs. 40,19,135/- at the rate of 30%. As per the invoice dated 19-1-1995 filed along with the B/E, they had listed complete details of the goods but had given only a consolidated value without any individual break up. On investigation, document called Fixed Assets Report (FAR) generated by M/s. SASL Dubai (Headquarters office of SASL India) showing the details of the individual items and their respective values was recovered. On this basis, the value of imported goods found to be Rs. 2,80,24,445/-. Statement of Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Operations Manager of SASL India was recorded on 25-1-2000 in which he stated that FAR was an internal accounting document, that the Gross Book Value (GBV) was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression and misdeclaration of value with intention to evade payment of appropriate duty and proposing confiscation of the imported items. The notice invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sec. 28(1) of the Customs Act. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who upheld the charge of deliberate misdeclaration and suppression of value, valued the goods in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules holding that GBV as shown in the monthly FAR was the assessable value. He, therefore, confirmed the demand under Section 28(1), imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Sec. 111(a) and confiscated goods under Sec. 111(m) of the Customs Act with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 50 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to justify it on the ground that what was imported by them was a complete unit. Therefore, the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked against them for misdeclaration and suppression of facts regarding value of the imported goods, with intent to evade payment of duty. 4. In the light of the above, while holding that duty is demandable from the appellants, we remand the case for re-quantification of duty after extending the benefit of depreciation in accordance with law. The issue of imposition of penalty is also left open for fresh determination by the Commissioner to whom we remand the case. As regards confiscation, while upholding the same, we direct re-determination of the quantum of redemption fine after arriving at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
