9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to export red sander. Therefore, red sander is absolutely confiscated - absolute confiscation upheld. Confiscation of handicraft furniture and wood/ metals - Held that:- The red sander as well as the other handicraft items were owned by the appellant and shipped from their own premises for export of the same - handicraft furniture of wood/metal are liable for confiscation and can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Penalty of ₹ 3.00 Lakhs under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is affirmed and penalty of ₹ 3.00 Lakhs is reduced under Section 114 (i) of the Act for attempting to export of prohibited goods. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. C/52163/2018 - FINAL ORDER N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the value taken by the authorities below while valuing the red sanders as well as the handicraft furniture is not correct. As the value of the whole consignment was about ₹ 11.00 lakhs and value of red sanders is of about ₹ 1,38,000/- but they have taken the value of red sanders at ₹ 3,06,000/- and others at ₹ 11,27,111/- respectively. But nothing was explained how the value of the said goods were arrived. Therefore, the value taken by the Revenue and imposing redemption fine is not correct. He further submits that as all the goods were separately packed in separate packages, therefore, the handicraft furniture of woods/ metal cannot be confiscated as held by this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submits that red sander is a prohibited item and cannot be exported. Therefore, appellant was exporting red sander under the guise of handicraft items . In that circumstance, whole of the consignment is liable to be confiscates and redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants are justified. 6. Heard both the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On consideration of submissions made by both the sides, the facts are not in dispute that the appellant filed a shipping bill containing 70 packages and on examination 6 packages were found of red sanders. On being asked about the invoice, the ld. Counsel for the appellant failed to produce the invoice before the Bench for proper examination of the contents of the invoice. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft items were owned by the appellant and shipped from their own premises for export of the same. Therefore, the said facts are not applicable in this case. 9. Further, the ld. Counsel for the appellant has raised an issue of valuation, how the valuation has been arrived. On the contrary the appellant has failed to produce the invoices of the said goods. Therefore, the valuation taken by the Revenue is taken as correct. At this time, the Bench also found that as the appellant has raised an issue of valuation, therefore, why not matter be transferred to Division Bench of this Tribunal, but on perusal of the records, I find that the said issue has been dealt by this Tribunal on 28.09.2018 wherein, this Tribunal hold that it is a case of mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
