9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the goods of the appellant were ‘Video Door Phone’ which is excluded from the purview of benefit of the abatement - When the goods came in disassembled form did not lose the characteristic thereof as complete goods and assembly of 3 components, was to result in complete goods of a description appearing in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which was subject to RSP valuation. Mis-declaration of description as well as value (RSP) was made. Learned authority rightly classified the goods under the CTH 8517 which is not challenged by the appellant. Redemption fine upheld - penalty also upheld - appeal allowed in part. - C/06/09 & C/1155/08 - A/89443-89444/17/CB - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member And Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sale Price (RSP) Notification. 4. According to Revenue, the goods as above, were nothing but the components and parts of the specific goods and had the character to be classified as such either called as Video Door Phone or Bell , which makes no difference to law. Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 makes clear that the goods entering into India having essential character of a specific goods whether in assembled or disassembled form refers to complete goods for levy. Thus appropriate duty on the basis of RSP was accordingly levied. But appellant, without challenging the RSP value, seeks relief for no rhyme or reason. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The goods that came to India were packed in container decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by appellant, those were liable to confiscation. For the reasons stated by Authority below, not being controverted by appellant, adjudication on valuation, classification and confiscation is confirmed. 9. The next question comes on the levy of redemption fine. A fine of ₹ 12 lakhs was imposed. However looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the selling price in the market, imposition of fine of ₹ 5,00,000/- is considered to be appropriate. So far as imposition of penalty ₹ 5,00,000/- is concerned, deliberate mis-declaration having been proved from the version of the Vice President of the appellant, penalty imposed remain untouched by this order. 10. In the result appeals are partly allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
