9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be rejected and value cannot be re-determined in absence of any plausible evidence regarding mis-declaration of the value of the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.C/50543 & 50544/2018 - CU [DB] - C/A/51684-51685/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 1-5-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C.L.Mahar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Mr.S.K. Pahwa, Advocate Mr.Rohan Pahwa, Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr.G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was re-determined at ₹ 42,00,016/-. The said order has confirmed the differential duty amounting to ₹ 8,72,344/- under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest. The order also confiscated the goods covered under the bill of entry dated 11.04.2016 and imposed penalties of ₹ 8,72,344/- on the appellant company under Section 114 A of the Act and ₹ 1,00,000/- on its Director, Shri Deepak Dhawan under Section 114 AA of the Act. Feeling aggrieved with the said order dated 20.03.2017, the appellants have preferred appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which were disposed of by the impugned order dated 13.11.2017, in upholding the adjudged demand against the appellants. 4. The ld. Advocate ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants cannot be questioned subsequently. 6. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 7. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant had mis-declared the description of the goods or the value thereof in the bill of entry. Inasmuch as the Performa invoice as well as the final invoice issued by the overseas supplier clearly indicates the value of the goods, which was declared by the appellants in the bill of entry filed for assessment. Further, the market enquiry report submitted by the Department clearly shows that the subject goods were substandard, outdated and were of inferior quality. On perusal of the case records, we also find that the approximate sale price submitted by the traders/ shopkeepers with regard to the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
