9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods back to its supplier on account of mis-match and apparently the same is not at all discussed by the lower authorities - also, there is no justification given by the adjudicating authority in re-determining the value at almost ten times the declared value nor is there any working given by the adjudicating authority before arriving at his value. Further, the adjudicating authority has also not discussed about the prevailing market value of the goods involved before imposing redemption fine nor has he discussed about applicability of Section 125 since, admittedly, the Revenue has not made out a case that the goods sought to be imported are prohibited under the Customs Act or under any other law for the time being in force and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the same at ₹ 84,75,490/- under Rule 3 ibid; ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 giving an option for redemption of the goods with a fine of ₹ 10,00,000/-, under Section 125 ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, having rejected and thereby upheld the OIO, the assessee-appellant has filed the present appeal before this forum. 2. Heard Shri S. Krishnanand for the assessee-appellant and Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC, for the Revenue. 3. The contentions of the Ld. Advocate for the appellants could be broadly summarized as under:- For an al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. 5.1 We have carefully gone through the orders of the lower authorities as also various submissions which are placed on record and on a careful analysis, we find that there is no finding on the legal submissions of the assessee nor is there any discussion as to the correctness or otherwise of such submissions and we have to say that the findings arrived at and upheld by the First Appellate Authority, are incoherent as far as the facts are concerned. At this juncture, it is very useful to refer to one of the pleas of the assessee that it had sought for re-export of the goods back to its supplier on account of mis-match and apparently the same is not at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
