9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In that circumstances, the rejection of enhanced value by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is correct. In the case of NAVPAD ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [ 2008 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] , it has been held that there is no evidence brought out by the Revenue to show that the appellant has paid more than what he has been declared to the Customs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal took a view to impose fine and penalty at 10% 5% respectively. As the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in the impugned order for reduction of fine and penalty. There are no merits in the Revenue s appeals, therefore, the same are dismissed. - Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the said goods are liable for confiscation. Accordingly, redemption fine and penalties were imposed. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed these appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed that old and used worn clothing falling under Tariff Item 63090000 is restricted item as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, could be imported only against valid specific license. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation, but it was held that the transaction value are arbitrarily rejected by the adjudicating authority. Relying on the Board s Circular No.36/2000 Cus. dated 08.05.2000, which stipulates that in the event of non-submission of valid import license, find and penalty could be imposed in such a manner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods and no market price is available to ascertain the import price of the impugned goods. Further, NIDB data cannot be the basis to enhance the declared value in the absence of any corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import. In that circumstances, we hold that the rejection of enhanced value by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is correct. 4. We further take note of the fact that in the case of M/s Navpad Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2009 (235) ELT 376 (Tri.-Bang.), it has been held that there is no evidence brought out by the Revenue to show that the appellant has paid more than what he has been declared to the Customs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal took a vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
