9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 114A of the Customs Act and has wrongly sustained the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act - penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) is set aside and penalty under Section 114A is sustained and upheld. Quantum of Redemption fine - Held that:- Keeping in view the valuation done by original authority on the basis of the documents and the basis of admission of the proprietor, the authorities have found that the goods are valued at ₹ 91,82,096/- being the transaction value for the purpose of assessment under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - redemption fine upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - C/2647/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20731 /2018 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 114A of the Customs Act, and upheld the Order-in-Original in respect of redemption fine and penalties imposed under Section 112(a). 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that the redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakh imposed by the original authority and upheld by the impugned order is unreasonable. He further submitted that the original authority has imposed penalties both under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Section 114A of the Act. He further submitted that imposing penalties under both the provisions simultaneousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the adjudicating authority has given the finding on the basis of the statement admitting the undervaluation by Shri R. V. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor of M/s. Bhuvanesh Engineering Works, Bangalore. Further, the original authority has considered all the documents and has arrived at the correct valuation on which the differential duty was paid by the appellant. He further submitted that the correct valuation of the imported goods was ₹ 91,82,096/- and imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakh is not very excessive and comes to only 10.89% which is neither illegal or harsh. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has observed in the impugned order that the quantum of redemption fine must be equal to the margin of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of admission of the proprietor, the authorities have found that the goods are valued at ₹ 91,82,096/- being the transaction value for the purpose of assessment under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, keeping in view the valuation of the imported goods, I do not find any infirmity in the imposition of redemption fine by both the authorities. Therefore, I sustain the imposition of redemption fine. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the redemption fine is sustained and the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is upheld or sustained. Penalty under Section 112(a) is set aside. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( Order was pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
