9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied by authorities; transaction value i.e. declared value was rejected for non-production of the certificate from load port - the action of rejection of the declared value is correct and that the valuation arrived at by the lower authorities and the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority on these points are correct and legal and does not require any interference. Undisputedly, products which were imported were without any, prior licence or permission from Ministry of Environment and Forests, and imported in violation of para 2.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 - the goods imported have to be held as of prohibited nature and correctly confiscated by the lower authorities. Appeal dismissed. - C/30855-30859/2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of fine, penalty was also imposed. The details are as under. a) Sl.No. Appeal No. Order-in Original No. Bill of Entry No. Date Value declared Bill of Entry Value adopted by the original authority Fine Rs. Penalty Rs. 1 75/2016-Cus 62/2016Adjn- Cus(ADC) 4059581 128.01.2016 13,23,171.05 28,82,366/- 4,50,000/- 3,50,000/- 2 78/2016-Cus 63/2016- Adjn- Cus(ADC). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect and the redemption fine, penalty is imposed are also incorrect. He submits that the value arrived at by the CE in the first Certificate needs to be applied and the redemption fine and penalty also needs to be appropriately reduced. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of lower authorities. 7. On consideration on the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the entire challenge of the appellant herein is towards valuation / enhancement of the value by the lower authorities based upon certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer (CE). We find that the both lower authorities relied on circular No. 25/2015 which clarified that all the imports second hand machinery / used capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s similar goods were found to have been valued at much higher prices th.an those declared by the importer-appellant. In such. factual scenario, though [he original authority has not stated in so many words The reason for rejection of the declared value, his decision cannot be over turned to the disadvantage of revenue merely on that ground alone since it is on record of the C.E certificate that the C F price of the good; on examination was found by the independent C.E to have not been correctly staled by the importer. On my detailed consideration of all related records of the cases, thus, I find that the absence of load port certificates and ascertainment of higher values of goods than those declared to provide sufficient reasons for susp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods'. Accordingly, the Chartered Engineer who issued the certificates in the impugned cases was the person who was authorised by the appellants themselves. Therefore, the importer cannot dis-own his authority at this stage. It is also to be noted that the inspection of the imported goods had been made only in the presence of the representative of' the importer. Further, the appellants have emphasized that the method used in ascertaining market value of goods was not brought to their notice and that they were not privy to the certificates issued by the C.E. However, I find from the case records that the appellants had been heard by the original authority before deciding the cases as requested by them and that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
