9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. The Commissioner has applied Section 14 and the Valuation rules to redetermine the value of goods. The contentions of the department that there is sufficient ground for confiscation under section 113(h)(ii) of the Customs Act, is not tenable as the alleged mis-declaration is not conclusively established. The Commissioner has traveled beyond the scope of SCN - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/366/2010 - Final Order No. 40433 / 2018 - Dated:- 21-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Dr. S.Krishnanandh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the original authority redetermined the value of the goods to be ₹ 16,90,500/- under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules 2007 r/w Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. The silk carpets were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 3 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also imposed under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Dr. S.Krishnanandh strongly argued that the adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. There is no whisper in the show cause notice either for invoking Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 or the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letus reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant was attempting to export very cheap quality durry in the guise of silk carpets. The department has properly conducted market inquires. The show cause notice has proposed confiscation of the goods sought to be exported. The value having been mis-declared, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalties are legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant is mainly pointing out the defects in the show cause notice. It is correct that the show cause notice does not propose for redetermination of the value of the goods or reject the value declared by the exporter/appellant. So also there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
