9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of market enquiry should have been made available to the appellant for his response so that a due decision can be arrived at. The same has not been done - The value of imported goods shall be determined in terms of data recorded in the impugned order based on NIDB. Import of undeclared items - prohibited items - measuring tapes having dual markings - Held that: - The appellant cannot totally escape the responsibility for such import of undeclared item. However, considering the type of items imported and there being ordered to be absolutely confiscated, the penalty may be reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants. - Customs Appeal No. 52934 of 2015 - C/A/50439/2017-CU[DB] - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Halogen lamps of various categories a market enquiry was conducted and following the RSP ascertained from such market enquiry and applying the provisions of Notification 13/2008-CE (NT) dated 01/03/2008 the value for the said items were determined. As such, the impugned order confirmed a differential Customs Duty of ₹ 6,23,606/- in excess of duty self-assessed to ₹ 3,67,531/-. The declared items were also confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 4,50,000/- Penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when there is a declared NIDB value which is almost similar to the declared v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a market enquiry which is done in the month of April 2015 when the import itself happened in November 2014. The material data of comparable goods as per the information NIDB data base is available with the authorities for assessment. The same has not been contested also by the appellant. The value declared by the appellant is lesser than NIDB data by only a small margin. Re-determination of value as per NIDB data is not contested by the appellant. We find there is no legal justification to conduct a market enquiry especially in the presence of comparable data authenticated in NIDB for identical goods for material period. Even otherwise the details of market enquiry should have been made available to the appellant for his response so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
