9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularly can be noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) when appellant itself admitted the examination report concerning the quality of goods imported. Confiscation - Imposition of penalty - omission committed or not - appellant had contended that no act or omission was proved against the appellant that would result in confiscation under Section 111(m) and Section 119 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As found from the Commissioner order s and from the case record, 28,000 Kg. HR M S plates valued at 11,20,000/- (re-determined) were misdeclared for which those were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and HR M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IB (I) (JNCH) under dock supervision who found the same to be goods of serviceable plates and not scrap. Accordingly, value of goods were re-determined and enhanced to ₹ 22,69,826/- from its declared value of ₹ 15,43,506.20/-, upon admission of representative of the importer who accepted the classification as 72082510 and value of goods as ₹ 40/kg loaded on the basis of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rule, 2007. Appellant was ordered to pay basic Customs duty @ 10% of the goods value. Confiscation order was also passed under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to the importer under Section 125 of the Act for redemption of goods on payment of fine of ₹ 4,00,000/- within 30 days of receipt of this order along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Customs (Import) is liable to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri Majoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner argued in favour of the reasoning and rationality found in the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) and took us through his order which indicated that not only X-ray image of the container was taken but Container Scanning Division staff in the presence of the importer's representative as well as Dock's Appraiser in the presence of SIIB(I) and JNCH Officer had also examined the same, weighed the same, measured the same, ascertained those to be serviceable and not scrap, two of which were bearing stickers of made in China. He further pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same can surely indicate the price of such goods in international market and it had been noticed that such goods were imported at a declared unit price of ₹ 40/kg at various ports and the same was accepted by the department that forms the basis of valuation under Rule 9 which provides residual method for determination of value of imported goods using reasonable means consistent with the principle and general provision of the Rules, on the basis of data available in India and the same should not exceed price at which ordinarily it is sold in the course of international trade. This being the guiding force of Rule 9, no irregularly can be noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) when appellant itself admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
