9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Pvt. Ltd filed regular Bill of Entry for the clearance of said consignment. The importer produced copy of licence agreement dt. 01.09.2006 with M/s Televisa, SA, DE and as per which the importer was required to pay licence fee of US$ 1850 being net hourly licence fee. The total licence fee to be paid under the agreement was US $ 1350500/-. The licence fee being paid for the 10 programmes being imported in said BE was US $ 18,500/-. Taking actual freight of Rs. 6423/-, and insurance of Rs. 8273/- @ 1.125% and exchange rate of US $ 1 = Rs. 39.75 the assessable value came to Rs. 7,57,572/-. They were issued show cause notice dated 08.02.2008 that the licence fee is liable to be included in the assessable value under Rule 10 (c) of Customs V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scommunication between the exporter, courier and the Appellant and there was no intention to evade duty. They themselves instructed the courier to file regular Bill of Entry after including the licence fee. The Adjudicating Authority held that the licence Fees/Royalty were includable in assessable value in terms of provision of Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The importer has to make declaration as to the truth of the contents of Bill of Entry and in support of such declaration to produce, to the proper officer, the invoice if any relating to the imported goods. The value of the goods were mis-declared to evade duty what so ever the reason for non-declaration may be on the part of the importer. It may be deliberately or on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty be reduced. 4. Shri Manoj Chavan, Superintendent (A.R.) appearing for the revenue supports the impugned order and submits that since mis-declaration of value has been made therefore the impugned order has been rightly passed. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records of case. We find that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed Redemption Fine and Penalty holding that even if the mis - declaration is unintentional than too the confiscation of goods, duty and Penalty would be imposable. The Appellant has contended that they had given clear instruction to the M/s. DHL that they had no intention to mis-declare the value. We are of the view that it was the responsibility of the Appellant importer to inform the exporter and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
