9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that AGP CARDS were misdeclared as VGA CARDS and also that the price of the goods was misdeclared. From the results of subsequent investigations, it appeared to the department that similar imports had been made in the past also. Shri V. Athi Narayanan, Regional Manager (Chennai) of the Company admitted misdeclaration of value and offered to pay the differential duty. The department gathered particulars of certain contemporaneous imports of AGP CARDS and, on that basis, proposed to enhance the value of the goods under Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. They also proposed to confiscate the goods (which had been seized under a Mahazar but subsequently released provisionally to the importer) under Section 111(m) of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods are not available for confiscation. However, I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I confirm the demand for Rs. 12,96,473/- on M/s. Visualan Technologies P. Ltd., Chennai, under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 12,96,473/- on M/s. Visualan Technologies P. Ltd., Chennai under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) I order adjustment of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid by M/s. Visualan Technologies P. Ltd., Chennai towards the duty demand and a PD Bond and bank guara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 AGP VGA CARD for MP with TV and a different price of US $ 24 per piece in respect of SIS 6326 AGP VGA CARD 8 MP TV. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that the relevant Bill of Entry was not provided by the Department and, therefore, the appellants were not in a position to find out whether the prices mentioned in the above invoice were accepted by the Department. Hence, according to the ld. Counsel, the goods covered under Bill of Entry dated 1-11-1999 were not correctly valued by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Commissioner ought to have accepted the price agreed to between the assessee and the supplier of goods. There is no valid reason for rejecting this transaction value. In any case, the decision rendered by the Commissioner in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
