9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt were all different. The commercial levels in the transactions were also different. We are of the opinion that this requires a more detailed examination. Regarding comparison of value with reference to imports by EGPL, the appellant contested certain factual findings recorded in the impugned order. Based on a letter received from M/s. RAACO ONE, who is a non-authorized dealer of the air-conditioners, a conclusion was drawn regarding the nature of transaction of air-conditioners in India - this fact requires further examination. Confiscation of goods - Held that: - It is now a well settled legal principle that the Adjudicating Authority cannot order the confiscation of the goods, which were neither seized /detained nor released on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,90,22,892/-. He also re-determined the value of seized air-conditioners at ₹ 1,61,64,262/-. The MRP declared was also rejected and re-determined at ₹ 23,42,21,725/-. The goods under seizure were ordered to be confiscated with an option to be redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 2.5 crores under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. A differential customs duty of ₹ 1,12,72,494/- was confirmed in terms of Section 28 of the Act. Penalty equivalent to this amount was imposed on the main appellant under Section 114 A and penalties of ₹ 30 lakhs each were imposed on other three appellants under Section 112 of the Act. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for all the appellants submitted on the following lines:- ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he imports from Thailand enjoyed concessional rate. EGPL is dealing with parent company, which is related. Since the appellant did not provide any warranty or any accessories/installation service, the prices declared are lower. (f) The goods, which are not in custody of the Department, cannot be ordered to be confiscated. The Original Authority has erred in ordering confiscation of goods, which are already cleared after due assessment. (g) The present case is one of parallel imports of identical goods. Even if there is a mis-declaration of MRP resulting in evasion of CVD, penal provisions under Customs Act cannot be invoked. There is no provision to demand duty when the goods were later sold with higher price. (h) Duty cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice. It is clear that MRP is fixed by the manufacturer and the dealers cannot have different MRP in respect of the same product. (e) Investigation by the officers proved that the MRP has been declared less at the time of import and the same goods were sold at much higher MRP to the customers. The enhancement of value upon such investigation based on evidence cannot be questioned. (f) Two of the appellants (Shri Rohit Sakuja and Shri Ajit Singh Chadda) were involved in similar mis-declaration and fraudulent import of identical goods. When the matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal, the penalties imposed were upheld. The appellants are fully aware of legal consequences and deliberately indulged in such mis-declared imports. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available with the Revenue during the material time. The appellant‟s claim is that all these goods were physically examined and in certain cases, the value re-determined before the goods were allowed clearance. In fact, the appellant claimed that the MRP declared by them was higher than those of EGPL. 9. Regarding rejection of value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules, we note that while, prima facie, the said rule can be invoked when the appellants failed to produce manufacturer‟s invoice and other supporting evidence in order to substantiate their declared value, re-determination of assessable value based on contemporaneous imports is to be done, considering similar commercial level in transactions. It is the submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of transaction of air-conditioners in India. It is submitted that EGPL provided free copper tubings, commission and installation service for the air-conditioners sold by them. We find this fact requires further examination. 13. One more important aspect is regarding confiscation of imported goods covered by 14 bills of entries. We note that the Original Authority ordered confiscation of seized as well as un-seized‟ goods with an option to redeem on payment of ₹ 2.5 crores in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is now a well settled legal principle that the Adjudicating Authority cannot order the confiscation of the goods, which were neither seized /detained nor released on a specific bond executed by the owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
