9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods but only to impose of restriction. Any type of restriction can be imposed by the DGFT by issuing the Notification, therefore, the DGFT is well within the power under Section 3 of FT (D&R) Act, 1992 to impose any condition for import. Whether enhancement of the value for the purpose of assessment on the basis of MIP is legal and correct? - Section 14 of Customs Act - Held that:- In the facts of the case the only reason for enhancement of the value is MIP fixed by DGFT. The MIP fixed by DGFT is only as a measure of restriction imposed for import of such goods. DGFT has not enhanced the value of the goods imported. If at all the custom intent to fix the value for the purpose of assessment in that case it can be done by issue of noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. OIA No. date Value of the goods Redemption fine Penalty C/11799/2017 OIA-MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-135-136-17-18 dated 08.08.2017 28,86,87,612.68 2,50,00,000/- 70,00,000/- C/11800/2017 OIA-MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-135-136-17-18 dated 08.08.2017 56,44,64,784.58 3,75,00,000/- 45,00,000/- C/11801/2017 OIA-MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-135-136-17-18 dated 08.08.2017 10,89,46,360 1,70,00,000/- 50,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the DGFT has no power to fix the minimum import price in terms of Section 3 of FT(D R) Act 1992. In this regard the power vested with the Parliament and not with DGFT, therefore, the notification issued by DGFT is without authority of law, therefore, the same cannot be considered. He further submits that the huge redemption fine and penalties were imposed only for a minor lapse that the appellant have allegedly violated the condition of import. He submits that there is no monetary gain or duty involved in violation of such condition. Therefore, the harsh redemption fine and penalty was not warranted. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments. Crystal Granite Marble Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Pune 2017 (7) GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the [import or export of goods or services or technology]: [Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall be applicable, in case of import or export of services or technology, only when the service or technology provider is availing benefits under the foreign trade policy or is dealing with specified services or specified technologies.] (3) All goods to which any Order under sub-section (2) applies shall be deemed to be goods the import or export of which has been prohibited under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not enhanced the value of the goods imported. If at all the custom intent to fix the value for the purpose of assessment in that case it can be done by issue of notification under the customs act for fixing the tariff value which is not the case here. Moreover, the custom authority have not carried out any investigation or brought any material on record to discard the value declared by the appellant. Therefore merely on the basis of MIP fixed by DGFT, the Customs valuation cannot be disturbed. The identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Crystal Granite and Marble (supra) where in the coordinate bench has taken the view as under: 5. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and records. We find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... driven by lot of factors and when the transaction is between the appellant and unrelated buyer there are no reasons to doubt the said value. The demand of duty is solely based upon the ground and reasoning that the Minimum Import Price fixed by the DGFT of the Marble Blocks is much higher and therefore the transaction value is not correct. We are unable to appreciate the same. We therefore hold that the impugned order does not sustain. In view of our above findings and discussion we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs. In view of the above judgment, the customs valuation cannot be altered or enhanced on the basis of minimum import price fixed by the DGFT. Accordingly, we set aside the enhancemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
