9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by the applicant and the samples taken were sent to Dy. Chief Chemist, JNCH, Nhava Sheva for testing. As per test report, the goods in both the containers were found to have average copper content to be 38.72% whereas in the filing Bill of Entry No. 893931 dated 9-9-2006 the applicant had declared appx. 30% max copper content in the goods in both the containers and its value as Rs. 35,29,825/-, and had cleared the goods on payment of custom duty of only Rs. 9,79,762/-. A case of mis-declaration and contravention of various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) was booked against the applicant. The aforesaid goods were placed under seizure on 1-11-2006. 3. A Show Cause Notice vide F.No. DRI/MZU/D/INV-07/06-07 dated 20-3-2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustment, a refund of Rs. 5,59,180/- was due to the applicant. 5. The Revenue vide its report dated 11-7-2007 has requested the application to be rejected on the basis of being not a full and true disclosure of duty liability by the applicant. The Revenue has also reported that on execution of Bond and BG, they had permitted the applicant to shift and store the goods in its own warehouse to avoid heavy demurrage. 6. Admission hearing in the case was held on 24-7-2007. During submissions, the ld. Advocate for the applicant mainly contested the methodology of valuation adopted by the Revenue and when the Bench asked the ld. Advocate as to whether they could contest the cases of valuation adopted by the Revenue as the Commissioner had in ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant is allowed to be adjusted with the admitted duty liability of Rs. 13,86,276.50. The Bench finds that the goods were provisionally assessed and cleared out of charge after which the DRI intervened The goods were placed under seizure on 1-11-2006 and upon execution of Bond and BG (supra), the Revenue had permitted the applicant to shift and store the goods at applicant s warehouse. As against the declared value of Rs. 35 lacs appx., the determined value is Rs. 85 lacs appx., hence, there is mis-declaration. From admitting an additional duty liability of Rs. 2.85 lacs appx, the applicant has agreed to the Bench s suggestion and has agreed to pay up the full additional duty liability of Rs. 14 lacs appx. thereby increasing his li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
