9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record to show that the appellant had paid more consideration for the said goods to the supplier of the same, there are no justifiable reason to enhance the assessable value - Inasmuch as, there was misdeclaration on the part of the assessee, the confiscation of the goods is warranted and penalty is required to be imposed on the importer - however, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty on Shri M. Sahul Hameed reduced. Penalty on Shri R.K. Aggarwal - Held that:- there are no reasons stand spelt out in the impugned order for imposing penalty upon him or his role, nowhere stands discussed by the adjudicating authority - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - C/00076, 00077/2011 - Final Order Nos. 40858-40859/2018 - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined the value of the goods at over ₹ 1.15 crores @ US $ 1400 CF per MT under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, after reclassifying the goods under CTH 2712 20 90. Penalties were also imposed on the appellants, apart from redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation. 2. The said order was appealed against before Tribunal and vide its Final Order No.812-813/2009, dated 30.07.2008, it was held as under:- 5. After considering the submissions, we observe that the Chemical Examiner s test report has not been contested by the assessee. The Chemical Examiner certified the sample to be paraffin wax with 0.7% by weight of mineral hydrocarbon oil. He also opined that fully refined paraffin waxes could contain mineral oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual quantity of wax imported from the same country was covered by Bill of Entry dated 18-4-2008 which indicated unit price of US $ 1467.74 per MT. Again, equal quantity of wax imported from the same country was covered by Bill of Entry dated 19-4-2008 which indicated unit price of US $ 1432.42 per MT. 200 MTs of wax imported from Denmark were covered by Bill of Entry dated 21-4-2008 which indicated unit price of US $ 1596.44 per MT. The wax in question was imported from Egypt in the quantity of 200 MTs. The appellants have questioned the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on the values of the goods imported from China and Denmark. In this connection, they have pointed out the quantity difference between their own import from Egyp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of wax at USD 675 per tonne. They relied upon the price of petroleum from Jan,'08 to Dec. '08 and contended that during the period May, '08 to July,'08, the price was at its peak and as such the prices adopted for the present consignment price of NIDB data for Apr. '08 is not reflecting the correct price as the purchase order was placed by them in the month of Feb.'08. 4. It is seen that the original adjudicating authority rejected the bills of entries produced by the assessee on the ground that in these cases, the import of fully refined paraffin wax was from China. As such again going by the NIDB data, he arrived at the value of the goods as USD 826 PMT confirming the differential demand of duty of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in the quantum of duty based upon the difference in Chapter headings. 7. We find that the charge of misdeclaration has already been upheld by the Tribunal and as such, cannot be re-agitated decided by the importer at this stage. Inasmuch as, there was misdeclaration on the part of the assessee, the confiscation of the goods is warranted and penalty is required to be imposed on the importer. However, by appreciating that the said misdeclaration would not result in any shortlevy on the part of the importer, we reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) and penalty on Shri M. Sahul Hameed to ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). His appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
