TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant have at the very first instance on query raised by the Department, have come forward with the correct value based on the proforma invoice. Further, it is an admitted fact that the appellant have remitted the price of USD 21500 through authorised banking channel, and as such no case of any malafide is made out against the appellant. At best, it is the mistake of the authorised courier who was not vigilant at the time of booking of the courier parcel to ensure the correct declaration by the shipper. No case of any collusion is made out against the appellant shipper and /or against the courier - thus, penalty have been imposed mechanically without proper appreciation of the facts and the law applicable. The order of confiscation as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CIF), covering the item imported vide above mentioned HAWB. The revised value of USD 21,500.00 (CIF) was considered as fair value of the imported goods by the Competent Authorities. Accordingly, on the basis of proforma invoice, the assessable value of the goods comes to ₹ 14,85,650/-. In view of submission of proforma invoice, it appeared that the declared value of ₹ 75,328/- is liable for rejection under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Further, the value as per proforma invoice i.e. USD 21,500.00 (CIF) equivalent to assessable value of ₹ 14,85,650/- is considered as fair and reasonable value of the imported goods in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0619 dated 20.06.2018. The declared value of the goods appeared to be very low. Therefore, the appellant was asked to submit the value evidence. The appellant submitted the proforma commercial invoice No. HH201805282N dated 28.05.2018 valued at USD 21,500.00 (CIF). Accordingly, on the basis of proforma invoice, the assessable value of the goods comes to ₹ 14,85,650/-. Further held that the declared value in the Bill of Entry does not represent true transaction value of the imported goods and therefore, liable for rejection under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and it was determined at ₹ 14,85,650/- (assessable value), on the basis of proforma invoice. The Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2010, imported goods shall bear a declaration from the sender or consigner, regarding the contents of each of the package and total value thereof. 7. Further urges that Regulation 5(3) of Courier I E Regulation requires, the authorised courier or his agent shall make entry of goods imported by him in an electronic declaration, by presenting to the proper officer, the courier Bill of Entry . 7.1 Further urges that Regulation 12(1)(v) of courier I E Regulation requires, the courier shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which is submitted to the proper officer, with reference to clearance of imported goods. 8. Further urges that there is no case of any mis-declaration or malaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out against the appellant-importer, and it is evidently a clerical error on the part of the shipper. The penalties imposed are fit to be set aside. 13. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. He further urges that the value on the package have been declared as USD900 by the shipper, which must definitely have been done with the knowledge of the appellant-importer. He further urges that the appellant-importer is responsible for filing of the correct courier Bill of Entry, and in the facts and circumstances a case of mis-declaration is made out under Section 111(m) of the Act. He further relies on the letter dated 06.07.2018 written by the appellant to the Customs Department, praying that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|