9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf in its appeal. Therefore comparison with the price of such imports cannot cause any prejudice to the appellant because it can be nobody's case that the price would be higher for imports of larger quantities of such goods. Imposition of redemption fine - Goods not available - Held that:- the goods which had been cleared without any bond and were not available for confiscation, no redemption fine can be imposed. Only goods which were seized can be confiscated and redemption fine can be imposed thereon. Therefore, the goods which are seized here are liable for imposing redemption fine. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Customs Appeal No. 163 of 2010 - Final Order No. 50892/ 2016 - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R. K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Shri G. R. Singh, DR ORDER PER: R. K. SINGH: Appeal is filed against order original dated 08/01/2010 in terms of which the Commissioner of Customs passed the following order: 36. In view of the foregoing discussions and finding, I pass the following order: i) I reject the total declared assessable value of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and re-determine the same as ₹ 51,63,000/- under Section 14 of the act Rule 8 of the Rules ibid. ii) I order to confiscate the imported artificial flowers having actual re-determined CIF value of ₹ 51,63,000/- under Section 111(d) (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the same being not available for confiscation, I impose a redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. iii) I order to confirm the demand of ₹ 18,54,113/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by invoking the proviso to the Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and order M/s Rudra Enterprises to pay the differential Customs duty amounting to ₹ 18,54,113/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. iv) I order for recovery interest from M/s Rudra Enterprises on the said differential customs duty amounting to ₹ 18,54,113/- under Section 28 (AB) (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from the first day of the succeeding month in which the duty ought to have been paid till the payment of such duty. v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 18,54,113/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, since penalty is being imposed on the firm un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those invoices were the genuine one and that they had been under valuing all other imported consignments to the extent of 70%. Similarly, the other two partners also admitted to undervaluation in the imports of all the consignments of artificial flowers to the extent of 70% and also confirmed the genuineness of the invoices retrieved from the computers which indicated much higher value. 3. The primary adjudicating authority after considering the reply of the appellant came to the finding that the evidence collected in the simultaneous investigations against importers of similar goods was directly applicable in respect of imports of the appellant and based thereon enhanced the value and passed the order as above. 4. When the case was taken up today, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant nor was there any request for adjournment. Therefore we proceed to decide the case on merits. 5. In its appeal papers the appellant has essentially contended that: (a) the show cause notice was issued by D.R.I. which was not the proper authority for issuing the show cause notice and therefore the impugned order is a nullity. (b) comparison of the value of contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcially interchangeable with the goods being valued having regard to the quality, reputation and the existence of trade mark; (ii) produced in the country in which the goods being valued were produced; and (iii) produced by the same person who produced the goods being valued, or where no such goods are available, goods produced by a different person, but shall not include imported goods where engineering, development work, art work, design work, plan or sketch undertaken in India were completed directly or indirectly by the buyer on these imported goods free of charge or at a reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale for export of these imported goods; It is not in doubt that the impugned goods had like characteristics which enabled them to perform the same function as the goods with which the value is compared and were produced in the same country. It is clear from the definition of similar goods that for the goods to be similar, they need not necessarily be manufactured by the same manufacturer. None of the goods imported by the appellant or by other importers had any brand names/ trade names. There is nothing to show that the goods im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
