9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, the officers entertained a doubt regarding correctness of the declared value. Certain enquiries were conducted in the market from the sellers of similar optical frames and on conclusion of enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant to enhance the declared value for assessment and also to take penal action against them. The Original Authority vide his order dated 02/04/2013 rejected the declared value and re-determined the same at Rs. 1,04,84,348/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. He ordered the confiscation of imported goods with permission to redeem on payment a fine of Rs. 58 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 29 lakhs was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- as fine. He imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 17/05/2017 upheld the original order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted on the following lines :- (a) the show cause notice originally proposed to re-determine assessable value based on market enquiry invoking Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. In the present proceedings, re-determination has been made in terms of Rule 5 by resorting to contemporaneous import made by the appellant through Calcutta Port. This is not tenable ; (b) the contemporaneous import relied upon by the Revenue is from different country (Italy and not from Franc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout due notice to the appellant. Even here we note the contemporaneous nature of similar goods is also disputed. Admittedly the country of origin and the period of import are not same. We find that resorting to value of similar goods could be an admitted process of re-determining the assessable value only if the conditions of Rule 5 are fulfilled and the appellants were provided due opportunity to defend their case. This has not happened in the present case. On repeated remand directions, the Revenue did not take action to rectify the basic infirmity in the reliance placed on market enquiry. This is in spite of specific direction given in the second time by the Commissioner (Appeals). As such, we find that the impugned order is not sustai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
