9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VS CARGO (hereinafter referred to as "the CB" or CHA) were mis-declared with respect to description and value of the goods to evade customs duty. The declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 13,90,663/- and declared duty was Rs. 2,63,437/-. 2. The said container was examined on 17.05.2016 in presence of two independent witnesses and representative of custom broker. The goods found during examination were as under:- Sl. No. Details of Goods Found Quantity per carton No. of Cartons Total Quantity 1. Reverse Osmosis Element (Nano H20)Brand "LG Chem"Model No.LGTWRO-1812-80 25 Pcs. 520 13000 Pcs During examination, it was observed that the party had declared the goods as Reverse Osmosis Element 80 GPD without declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lution dated 08.06.2016 of Board of Directors of the Company to tender statement on behalf of the company; that Shri Rajnish Tyagi and Shri Satya Pal were two Directors of the company; that regarding the present import consignment of Membranes imported vide Bill of Entry No.5221180 dated 11.05.2016, he did not know who had interacted with the foreign supplier or who had finalised about the brand or quantity; that he did not know whether order for branded membranes was given or not; that he also did not know whether there was any correlation of price with branded membrane; that he was not in a position to give any evidence whatsoever relating to price negotiations, quality and quantity of goods to be imported and actually imported. 5. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame query with the Member of the LG Chem, who clarified that: a. The sample provided by this office seems to be genuine. b. M/s. LG Chem has not authorised any person or agent in India so far. c. The value of the item LG Chem Nano H2O(LGTWRO-1812-80) was approx. USD 6 per pc. 7. From the above, it appeared that the goods had been undervalued by the importer, who mis-declared the imported goods @ 1.4 USD per pc. Instead of 6.0 USD per pc., as informed by LG electronics India (P) Ltd., in consultation with M/s. LG Chemicals. It also appeared that the goods were counterfeit and that the importer had misled the department. 8. Further, the goods appeared to be undervalued as the price declaration was 1.4 USD per piece instead of USD 6 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to why under Section 112(a) of the Act, Shri Rajneesh Tyagi, Director and Shri Umeshwar Prasad, Authorised Signatory of M/s Manvi Exim Pvt. Ltd. should not be penalised. 10. Show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2017 on context, confirming the proposals in the show cause notice and as regards the mis-declaration of value and re-determination of the value. Further, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs along with interest. Duty of Rs. 2,63,436/- already paid was ordered to be adjusted and bank guarantee was ordered to be appropriated towards payment of duty. Further, penalty of Rs. 7,38,675/- was imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission, the supplier informed them that these goods were trial production products and that by mistake, the vendor had fixed the stickers. From the above, it is evident that, whatsoever the reasons may be, the impugned goods were mis-declared in respect of brand name of the goods imported, which render them liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (c) I find that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The quantum of redemption fine depends upon the value of the goods ordered for confiscation. As already discussed above, the enhancement of the assessable value has been set aside; however, the impugned goods have been found mis-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in absence of the conditions precedent under Rule 4 (2) read with proviso of Customs Valuation Rules, the Department is bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. It was further held that the enhancement of value based on the letter of LG Electronics is arbitrary and is not sustainable. There is no evidence of any payment made over and above the transaction value. Accordingly, re-assessment of the goods was set aside and the assessment at the declared value was restored. 14. It was further held that as the impugned goods have been found to be mis-declared in respect of brand name and the same are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act and redemption fine was modified at Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty imposed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
