9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication to the extent of reducing the penalty only. 2. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are as under : 2.1 That acting on specific information that passengers namely Mr.Ashokkumar Raojibhai Patel (petitioner No.1 herein) and Mrs. Meenaben Ashokkumar Patel (petitioner No.2 herein) are coming from London to Ahmedabad via Dubai by flight No.EK 540 on 7/7/2010 along with Diamond Jewellery worth 17,000 Pounds for which VAT refund was claimed in London, a team of customs officers kept a vigil at immigration counter and identified both the passengers there itself. Both the passengers were kept under watch; they collected their check-in-baggage and proceeded to the green channel where they were asked for the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner No.2 herein) later on. The said jewellery items were placed under seizure vide panchnama dtd. 7/7/2010 under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, under the reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation. In his various statements of Mr.Ashokkumar Raojibhai Patel (petitioner No.1 herein) were recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 7/7/2010, 12/7/2010, 28/10/2010 and 3/12/2010 and he has stated as under : (1) That the Diamond ornaments namely a ring and two bangles as shown in Annexure-A to the Panchnama dtd. 7/7/2010 were gifted to him by his sister for his only daughter. (2) That the value of the above goods was 14500 pounds and that his sister told him to app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Basic Duty Rs.3,509/-) seized under regular panchnama dtd. 7/7/2010 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), 111(l) and 111m of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Custom duty amounting to total Rs.3,61,464/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four only) (Basic Duty @ 35% Rs.3,50,936/- + Education Cess @ 2% of Basic Duty Rs.7,019/- + Higher Education Cess @ 1% of Basic Duty Rs.3,509/-) should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) the interest at the rate(s) as applicable or as fixed under section 28AA / section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be charged and recovered from him on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fidavit-filed by the sister of the petitioner No.1 - Ashokkumar declaring the value of the jewellery as 4675 British Pound. 2.7 After considering the defence raised by the petitioners and considering the valuation of the jewellery mentioned in the Bill No.p 21288 dtd. 26/6/2010 issued by M/s. P.B.L. Jewellers Ltd. in the name of Meenaben A. Patel -petitioner No.2 herein, which was found from the possession of the Meenaben A. Patel - petitioner No.2 herein and considering the valuation on the basis of which they claimed return of VAT from British authority, the adjudicating authority considered the valuation of the jewellery at 14,500 British Pounds and passed order dtd. 30/8/2011, operative part of which reads as under :- &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,61,464/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four only) under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I impose penalty of Rs.1,80,732/- on Shri Ashokkumar Raojibhai Patel and Rs.1,80,732/- on Smt.Meenaben Ashokkumar Patel under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.8 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad dtd. 30/8/2011, both the petitioners preferred two separate Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) being appeal Nos.24 and 25 of 2012. 2.9 That by common order dtd. 9/3/2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Order-in-Original to the extent of demand of interest under section 28AA / section 28AB a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of jewellery at 14,500 British Pound. It is submitted that in fact, the valuation of the jewellery in question was less, however, with a view to get more benefit of refund of VAT, the valuation was put on the higher side. It is submitted that from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the petitioners that the valuation mentioned in the Bill i.e. Rs. 14,500 British Pound was on higher side and therefore, the adjudicating authority ought to have got the jewellery in question valued by government approved valuer. It is submitted that in absence of valuation got done by the government approved valuer, the adjudicating authority has erred in considering the valuation of the jewellery in question at 14,500 British Pound. Making abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
