9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marble slabs whereas on inspection / physical examination of the goods, it was found that the impugned goods were polished marble slabs. There was misdeclaration. The price of goods which are differently described in documents cannot be held to pertain to the impugned goods - Department has made out a strong case of misdeclaration against the appellant. As such, the confiscation upheld under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid. Rejection of declared value - value was arrived in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 making reference to NIDB data - principles of natural justice - Held that:- Though the appellants had tried to make a case of not being heard before such a decision was taken, the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the declared value of the invoices did not represent the impugned goods and the value declared thereof required to be rejected and requires to be redetermined under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 and that the impugned goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. In respect of Bill of Entry No.209852 dt. 17/10/2007, Commissioner of Customs passed Order-inoriginal No.36/2007 dt. 07/12/2007 and on this, the appellants have preferred appeal No.C/324/2008. In respect of other Bill of Entry, the Jt. Commissioner of Customs has passed a Order-in-Original No.95/2007 dt. 07/12/2007 which was confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order No.280/2008 dt. 21/10/2008 wherein Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962, prohibition includes both absolute prohibition and prohibition with a condition and includes restriction. The importer has not disputed the fact of restriction and as they have no licence to import the impugned goods i.e. the polished marbles, the goods have acquired the nature of being prohibited goods. ii. The importer has imported Polished marble slabs . However the LOC, invoice and packing list showed them to be unpolished marble slabs . Even if one accepts the contention of the appellants that the mistake was due to a clerical error, the foreign supplier was required to confirm that they have issued the impugned invoice, packing list etc. due to a clerical mistake. The importer did not show any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by specifically referring to the contemporaneous imports of identical / similar goods. He submitted that Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Raman Enterprises [2003(158) ELT 694 (Tri. Del.)] held that once the nature of goods has been declared, the value cannot be accepted. The Tribunal s judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004(169) ELT A147 (SC). The Department has not only considered the different values available in respect of identical / similar goods imported but they have also considered the least value among the available values. Due diligence was maintained to adhere to the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Televisions (P) Ltd. [2007(214) ELT 3 (SC)]. iv. Learned Commissioner(AR) has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2. Lastly, he submitted that taking into account of the entire facts including the evidence and statements of the importer, the Hon ble Bench may please issue directions to the concerned authorities to lodge a criminal complaint before the competent Magistrate under Section 199 and 200 of IPC against the appellants for giving false evidence and statements before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused records of the case. 5.1. It is evident from the above that the appellants have imported polished marble slabs from China and Sultanate of Oman and filed different Bills of Entry. The invoices, packing list and the LOC describe the goods to be unpolished marble slabs whereas on inspection / physical examination of the goods, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department has made a forceful case for imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Therefore we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the Order-in-Original and Order-in- Appeal in respect of present two appeals. 5.4. As brought out by the learned AR, it is apparent on record that on two issues, the appellants have misrepresented the facts before this Bench. The fact that they have corrected the description in the Bill of entry only after being pointed out by the Department was not brought to the notice of this Bench. It is evidence that the appellants admitted to project a clean image before the Bench by projecting that though the LOC, invoices and the packing list contained description as unpolished marble slabs due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
