9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No.53156/2016(DB) - A/50293/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 11-1-2018 - Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri B.L. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Majhi, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appellant imported glass chatons through ICD, TKD and filed bills of entry on 28.09.2015. On examination of the cargo and verification of the documents filed with the bills of entry, Revenue found that the quantum and description of the product and the value declared appeared to be not acceptable. There were discrepancies in the contents of the cargo and also in the declared value fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the First Check requisite is only a ploy by the importer when they realized similarly shipped consignments have been subjected to such check by the officers considering the prevalence of misdeclaration in such goods. This will not absolve the appellant from any penal consequences. He submitted that importer malafidely declared value is wrong and the second invoice produced during investigation had much higher value i.e. ₹ 2.42 lakhs instead of declared ₹ 1.41 lakhs. Further, regarding not accepting both the invoices, ld. AR submitted that the product is admittedly mis-declared for description and the contents and this importation from China are regularly being monitored for misdeclaration. The value declared during assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. We note that the value as declared by the importer was based on an invoice, which was admittedly not genuine. In such situation, proposals were made based on the contemporenous assessment, correctness of which has been admitted. No protest has been recorded. As such, we cannot be now called upon to examine the correctness of value in absence of any ground towards that. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the certain case laws to state that admission of valuation for clearance of the goods by itself will not absolve the Department for giving reasons and justification for re-determination of value. While we agree on such legal principle, we note that in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appellant themselves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
