9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariness in the valuation done by the registered valuer, which is on higher side by 25%. The penalty under Section 114A of the Act is confirmed - the quantum of penalty reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs - appeal allowed in part. - Customs Stay Application No. 50661 of 2021 (SM) in Customs Appeal No. 52298 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50643/2023 - Dated:- 4-5-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER In compliance to previous order dated 16.02.2023 appellant revenue have served the notice on the respondent by publishing the same in the newspaper in Times of India and Nav Bharat, New Delhi dated 28.03.2023. Accordingly, the substit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --------- Chinese hands free for mobile phones (wired) -------- 4000 3. The goods also appeared to be undervalued as well as misdeclared as the importer did not give any evidence of contemporarious imports, the declared value appeared to be low and was rejected. The revenue got the goods revalued by the Government authorised valuer, due to non availability of data of contemporarious import on NIDB and also in that situation (Covid) the market enquiry etc. could not be resorted to due to the disturbed conditions. The valuer has revalued the goods at Rs. 62,35,923.50 which included the undeclared and mis-declared goods, against declared value of Rs. 13,31,102/-. 4. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act r/w Rule 11 of Foreign Trade Regulations 1993. Such mis-declaration tantamounts to smuggling. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orderin- Appeal have been pleased to confirm the findings as to misdeclaration and accordingly confirmed the order of confiscation under Section 111 (l) (m) of the Act. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further confirmed the method of revaluation adopted by revenue and accordingly, confirmed the revaluation as done by the authorised valuer. So far the redemption fine is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is part of the order in appeal needs to be modified. 8. Having considered the facts and material on records and considering the grounds of revenue, I find that there is error in findings recorded in Commissioner (Appeals) as to penalty. I find that there is no mention of Section 28 anywhere in the adjudication order. As such, the adjudication order is definitely under Section 17 of the Act. Further, I find that the appellant have admitted the mis-declaration and have prayed for decision on merits, as the imported goods were ready market due to Covid Panedmic disturbances, which was at its peak during the relevant time. However, I find that there is some arbitrariness in the valuation done by the registered valuer, which is on higher side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
