9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against order in original No. 36/Commissioner/09-10 dated 28/01/2010 in terms of which 3.9 MT of goods were ordered to be mutilated, classified under Customs Tariff Heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962, redemption fine of Rs. 1,30,000/- imposed, the value enhanced upwards to US $ 37447.43 (C&F) from the declared value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was also no ground for ordering mutilation. It is also contended that no basis has been given to reject the transaction, value and to revise the value upwards. 4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the declaration of the appellant as regards the description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). We find that one of the persons whose opinion was sought gave the value which was even lower than the value declared by the appellant. The transaction value was sought to be rejected as per the Show Cause Notice essentially because the goods were alleged to be mis-declared in description thereof. Once the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we do not find the upward revision of value sustainable and as a consequence there remains no ground to order confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(m) ibid leading to redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
