9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al are categorical that such valuation attracted Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and thus, properly resulted in penalty and confiscation. After considering these aspects, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced having regard to the entire conspectus of circumstances - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee. - CUSAA 6/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. A. P. Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The assessee challenges a final order of the Customs Excise and Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the confiscation of goods but reduced the fine to Rs. 40,000/- and penalty to Rs. 30,000/- on a finding that since contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy had been discerned, Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act was attracted. 3. The assessee approached the CESTAT, which by its impugned order rejected the contentions in the following terms: 5. I have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. In this case, there is no dispute that which MRP of the imported goods had been declared in the Bill of Entry and on this basis, Additional Customs duty has been paid, the MRP had not been declared on the' individual packages. According to para 5 of the General Notes of Foreign Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was also argued that the Customs or Central Excise authorities are not entitled to re-fix the price by applying the other standards. 5. This Court notices in this case that the proprietor of the assessee had made a statement under Section 108 admitting that the items imported were covered under Schedule 3 of the items of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore, required MRP disclosure. Furthermore, the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original are entirely premised upon the goods having been seized because they were found to be without MRP stickers at the time of the search on 16.5.2008. The Order in Original as well as the Order in Appeal are categorical that such valuation attracted Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and thus, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
