9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed as Rs. 1,60,327/-. The importer submitted a letter dated 21 July 2016 accepting the value and duty as assessed by the customs and further stated that did not want a show cause notice or a personal hearing in the matter. Further, they requested to release their consignment on nominal fine and penalty and stated that they are ready to bear the fine and penalty. Based on this letter, the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed order dated 11 May 2016 as follows :- "(i) I reject the declared assessable value Rs. 15,141/- for goods under AWB No. 808815275160 in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determine as Rs. 9,21,951/- in terms of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I confiscate the goods covered under AWB No. 808815275160 and relevant Bill of Entry No. 406577 dated 06/05/2016, having re-determined value of Rs. 9,21,951/- under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Section 125 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Learned Departmental Representative takes the Bench through the facts of the case as narrated above and submits that this is a case of import of printer parts by the appellant. On the reasonable belief of the declared value was incorrect and it had to be rejected under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, the officers of Customs Preventive detained the goods and after examining the goods which were actually imported and the contemporaneous import data, found that the goods were under-valued. The appellant had accepted the enhanced value in writing and also requested that no show cause notice may be issued and also that they do not require any personal hearing. They also agreed to pay the fine and penalty. Accordingly, the value of the goods was enhanced from Rs. 15,141/- (as declared by the appellant) to Rs. 9,21,951/-. Correspondingly, the customs duty on the imported goods was re-assessed from Rs. 2,634/- (as per declaration) to Rs. 1,60,327/-. The goods were ordered to be confiscated for mis-declaration under Section 111 (m) and were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43 (Tri.-Del) and Guardian Plasticote Ltd. versus CC (Port), Kolkotta - 2008 (223) ELT 605 (Tri.-Kol), held that as the Appellant therein had expressly given consent to the value proposed by the Revenue and stated that it did not want any show cause notice or personal hearing, it was not necessary for the Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the consented value became the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. Paragraph 5 of the decision is reproduced below: "5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that whatever may be the reasons, the appellant expressly gave its consent to the value proposed by Revenue and expressly stated that it did not want any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Even the duty was paid without protest. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily foregoing the need for a Show Cause Notice, the appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the consented value in effect becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. To allow the appellant to contest the consented value now is to put Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir acceptance of the value that formed the basis for determination of the value. The decisions relied upon by the respondent to support the contentions ought to be raised are, therefore, of no benefit to them. 47. The general observations made the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the value declared in the Bills of Entry were being enhanced uniformly by the Department for a considerable period of time was uncalled for. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to the crucial aspect that the importers had themselves accepted the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) in fact, proceeded to examine the matter as if the assessing officer had enhanced the declared value on the basis of other factors and not on the acceptance by the importers. This casual observation is not based on the factual position that emerges from the records of the case". 9. We have considered the submissions on both the sides. 10. The facts are not in dispute. The goods were imported declaring a certain value which was doubted by the officers and so the goods were opened and examined. After opening and examining and comparing the goods with the value of corresponding goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 77 in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 54". 13. Since, the appellant has, by mis-declaration rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 the importer is liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114AA, which read as follows :- "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act" (b) ...... ........... shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher : Provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
