2017 (5) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of payments made in complex manner was unearthed. Since the facts were suppressed and wrongful declaration was made consequentially the extended period has been rightly invoked. Redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - the goods were imported by wrongful declaration. The facts were concealed from the department - redemption fine and penalty upheld. ROM application dismissed.
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) Shri. V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Shri. T. Vishwanathan, Advocate and Shri. Srinidhi Ganeshan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair This application for rectification of mistake in this Tribunal's Order Nos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CVD. That when no duty was imposable on imported software they had mentioned that there is no condition of sale and such declaration was accepted by the department and the same was bonafide belief in mentioning in GATT declaration. (iv) That the Star Entertainment decision [2015-TIOL-493- HC-MUM-CUS] was relied upon to show that non payment of duty was bonafide mistake and not due to mis-declaration or suppression of facts. (v) That the confiscation of goods is not possible under Section 111 (m) which were provisionally assessed. The goods were neither seized nor available for confiscation. (vi) Penalty on provisionally assessed goods is not imposable and since the appeal has been remanded for re-quantification of duty and has not been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und has been canvassed. As far as applicability of Rule 7, we have already explained at length as to why valuation under Rule 7 is not correct. In the present case when the price list of same goods of M/s Esys Information Technology and M/s Inagram Micro is on record, that price list will be used as benchmark and necessary deduction will be made. In such case there is no ground to value the goods in terms of Rule 7 as quantifiable data for greatest aggregate quantity is not available. The adjudicating authority has also dealt with the issue in Para 22 of the adjudication order. Further the goods in this case were sold only to the persons who were having agreement with the owner of licence i.e M/s Microsoft. Hence in such case the value can .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X