9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in detail and clearly rejected the transaction value and sequentially proceeded to re-determine the value sequentially for Rule 4 to Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules. - present case is not only mis-declaration of value but the appellants have also mis-declared the quantity and also description and also certain goods were not even declared. The lower appellate authority has also rightly examined their plea and gave clear finding on the appellant s contention for variation in quantities. Accordingly, rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty and the confiscation are liable to be upheld. - However, redemption fine is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C/10/2007 - Final Order No. 41366 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and submits that they have imported sports goods of various items as per the invoice at page 27 of the paper book. He submits that initially the value was enhanced and again it was further enhanced based on the NIIB data and internet which is not acceptable. He drew attention to paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 of the impugned order and submits that the appellate authority has not considered their plea at all. He relied on the following decisions:- (a) Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) (b) Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.3.2006. All their arguments before the lower appellate authority and this Tribunal are only afterthought which has no basis. He submits that the entire case laws relied on by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no mis-declaration in the above cited cases. He submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the transaction value and enhanced the value and also confiscated and imposed fine and penalty and the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants vide Invoice No. 18107 dated 10.3.2006 had imported sports goods of various items including sports shoes etc. and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idences of purchase invoice, terms of purchase, contract to prove that transaction is at arms-length before clearance. As rightly held by the lower appellate authority, the present case is not only mis-declaration of value but the appellants have also mis-declared the quantity and also description and also certain goods were not even declared. The lower appellate authority has also rightly examined their plea and gave clear finding on the appellant s contention for variation in quantities. Accordingly, rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty and the confiscation are liable to be upheld. 6. As regards imposition of fine and penalty, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
