9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repancy has not been explained by the appellants. Further, a claim has been made by the appellants that they only ordered for the reject quality goods. This submission appears to have no substance as they have taken delivery of the impugned goods without returning the same to the suppliers, which was required to be done, if the suppliers were at fault in supplying a different quality of goods. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the Master Bill of Lading declared the goods to be of Grade-A quality whereas the House Bill of Lading showed the description as reject quality. In view of these discrepancies, the department proposed to discard the declared value of US$ 2.1 per kg. and proposed to enhance the value to US$ 2.5 per kg. on the basis of contemporaneous imports. 2. The adjudicating Commissioner has passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. During the course of final hearing of the appeal, we have not heard the learned advocate arguing anything new which requires us to take a different view from the prima facie view earlier taken by the Bench which had heard the stay matter. 5. SASMIRA in Mumbai, which found the impugned goods to be of Grade-I quality, is the Synthetic and Art Silk Mills Research Association and is a reput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not blindly adopted the higher value of US$ 2.5 per kg proposed in the SCN, but has adopted the proper value of US$ 2.3 per kg after analyzing all the evidence before him. Hence, the determination of value done by him requires no interference. 7. The argument of the appellants that the declared value should be accepted for Customs purposes is without any basis. When the quality of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excessive. However, considering the fact that the appellants have benefited only to the extent of Rs.3,12,377/- which is the differential duty on account of wrong valuation as reflected in the appeal memo filed by the appellants, we are of the view that there is a case for reducing the redemption fine and penalty. 9. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs.8 lakhs to Rs.2,00,000/- ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
