9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance - The failure of the appellant to get the IGM and bill of lading amended was construed as a mis-declaration by the Original Authority. We note that these two documents were not to be filed by the importer/appellants. Re-determination of declared value - Held that: - Considering the nature of the goods and possible variation in appraising the case by different persons, we note that there is no case of misdeclaration of value. The duty difference comes to around ₹ 73,000/- only. When considering the total liability of duty being more than ₹ 70 lakhs such difference is mainly attributable to appraisal method and variation in opinion - rejection of declared value not justified. Even if the appellant had purported intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond by the importer. 2. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority held that the value of the goods is to be re-determined at ₹ 2,51,25,568/- and the importer is liable to pay duty of ₹ 70,21,633/-. He ordered appropriation of ₹ 69,48,207/- already paid at the time of provisional assessment. The goods which were earlier seized and released were ordered to be confiscated in terms of the bond executed by the main appellant. A redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties of ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2 lakhs were imposed on the main appellant and the second appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. A furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were declared with proper description and correct value, there is no ground for confiscating the same and imposing penalties on the appellants ; (vi) the classification of glass chatons is not correct. The Correct classification is only CTH 70181020. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. He submitted that though the description and the value declared in the bill of entry almost tallied with the final finding of the Original Authority, the evidences gathered during investigation in the form of another invoice in the computer indicated that the appellants attempted to mis-declare the description and value of the goods. In fact, there is serious discrepancy in the bill of lading/IGM. This was intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged one. The invoice which is retrieved from the E-mail account of the appellant was never filed with the Department and the same was recovered during investigation. Such material particulars in possession of the appellant in his private capacity and not filed for clearance of any import consignments cannot substantiate a case of mis-declaration. 6. Further, we also note that the provision of Section 138C of the Customs Act relating the admissibility of computer print out as evidence in the proceedings have not been followed in the present case. The charge of mis-declaration against the importer was sought to be supported by the details contained in the bill of lading and IGM. We note that the bill of lading and IGM are not the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority recorded that the value cannot be determined under Rule 4 and 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. We note that before proceeding with the re-determination, the Original Authority should reject the transaction value as declared by the importer. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Original Authority only examined the applicability of various valuation rules to the present case. The value declared by the appellant is ₹ 2,45,95,984/-, the value re-determined based on Valuation Certificate of the Government approved valuer is ₹ 2,51,25,568/-. Considering the nature of the goods and possible variation in appraising the case by different persons, we note that there is no case of misdeclaration of value. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
