9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. The adjudicating authority has also reassessed the imported goods' valued at Rs. 21,84,384/- against the declared price of Rs. 12,45,354/- by the appellant. The adjudicating authority also ordered the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the same was allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) under Section 125 of the Act. As the imported goods were not available for confiscation on account of having been released provisionally to the appellant. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 (One lakh Twenty Five thousand) was also imposed under Section 112A of the Act for mis-declaration of the imported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mical analysis forwarded the test result, which is as under : "The sample is in the form of dark brown coloured pasty mass. It has the characteristics of Palm Kernel Fatty Acid FFA content = 78.8 by weight" . In view of above, it appeared to the Revenue that the appellant had mis-declared the imported products as Palm Kernel Acid Oil instead of Pam Kernel Fatty Acid with intention to evade Customs duty wilfully. Further, the product was Palm Kernel Fatty Acid and, therefore, the value declared by the appellant was also proposed to be re-determined in terms of Rule 6 read with rule 10A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, after obtaining the contemporary import price from Mumbai port which was @ USD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentary manual published by CBEC. Learned Advocate also relied upon the decision of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla - 2000 (122) ELT 428 (Tri.) and in the case of M/s O.C. Crochets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi -III - vide Final Order No. 60437/2019 dated 3.4.2019 and he, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order with consequential benefit. 5. Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of confirmation of demands as contained in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the case record. 7. The basic issue to be decided in this case is regarding the description of the imported goods as to whether the Palm Kernel Acid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd requested to visit their factory to know the manufacturing process as well as the machinery is used, but, the said request has not been accepted. We have gone through the CBEC Central Excise Manual, the procedure for retested is provided. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has ask for retest and same has been denied on the flimsy ground, therefore, there is a violation of principle of natural justice as held by this Tribunal in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla-2000 (122) ELT 428 (Tribunal) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "10.We find that the Commissioner of Customs, in the impugned order, denied the request for re-test on the ground that no valid reason for the same has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
