9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at by the department on the basis of lab test reports. Taking into consideration the lengthy submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, it is opined that the appellant has to be given one more chance to contest the case on merits. The matter is fit for remand to the adjudicating authority who is directed to conduct de novo adjudication of the matter. The adjudicating authority are directed to complete the de novo adjudication within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.42026 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 40146/2022 - Dated:- 22-4-2022 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic fabrics 104382 Sqm 663 3 Undeclared ----- ----- Polyester decorative fabrics 547 Sqm 3 4 Undeclared ----- ----- Polyurethane coated fabrics 5230 Sqm 68 Total 787 787 2. In order to ascertain the composition and the appropriate description of the fabrics, samples were drawn and vide Test Memo No.380/2016. The samples were sent to Customs Laborat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 075290 3. On the basis of test report and the other details, it appeared that the goods were deliberately misdeclared with respect to description, quantity and value with an intention to undervalue the fabrics and to evade customs duties. The entire 787 bales were seized under mahazar dt. 09.01.2017. Statements were recorded. Show cause notice dated 07.07.2017 was issued and corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 04.01.2018 were issued to the appellant requiring them to show cause as to why the declared value should not be rejected and re-determined. It was proposed to demand differential customs duty along with interest and also to impose penalties. Appellant did not reply to the SCN and did not attend personal hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 12,00,000 (Rupees twelve lakh only) under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with duty confirmed above and applicable interest; (iii) I impose penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) on M/s.Zariwala Enterprise (Proprietor, Mr.Maaz Kader Zariwala), Mumbai under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iv) I impose penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) on M/s.Zariwala Enterprise (Proprietor, Mr.Maaz Kader Zariwala), Mumbai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962; Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared on behalf of the appellant. His arguments are summarized as under : 4.1 He submitted that the officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger of the appellant s firm was summoned to appear on 07.02.2017 before the SIIB for further investigation. Appellant had then informed officers that the cargo was supplied instead of being sent to Moscow. The said contention of the appellant was not accepted by the department. 4.4 Ld. Counsel argued that the when goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, it shall be classified under the heading which occurs lost in numerical order as per Rule 3 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Import Tariff under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By reclassifying the fabrics, the department has indirectly denied ad valorem rate of duty and the benefit of Notification No.14/2006-Cus., dated 01.03.2006 as claimed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tempt to rebut any of the allegations raised in the SCN, they cannot now contest the same by putting forth fresh evidence in the nature of date relating to contemporaneous import. The goods were reclassified on the basis of lab test report. The value has been reassessed on the basis of the data intimated to the appellant by issuing the SCN. He submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Heard both sides. 7. At the outset, it has to be stated that the appellant has not filed any reply to the SCN and has not attended the personal hearing. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods are much different than the values given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
