9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat "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 Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 57,08,496/- are liable to confiscation under 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me supplier, relied on by the department. This invoice indicates a unit price of US $ 19.5 for "SIS 6326 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which can, perhaps, go to support the appellants' plea that the goods imported by them was not misdeclared. This document was not available to the Commissioner at the time of passing the impugned order. It further appears that any assessed Bill of Entry covering contemporaneous import of identical goods was not supplied to the party. We are of the view that these infirmities require to be cured in de novo adjudication of the case relating to the Bill of Entry dated 1-11-1999. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication of the dispute relating to VGA/AGP CARDS covered under Bill of Entry No. 244637 dated 1-11-1999. The appeal stands allowed by way of remand. Ordered accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
