9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority. The place of import, the foreign supplier, quantity of the goods, the nature of the goods imported etc., would affect the value of the goods imported. These details are to be discussed by the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that there are sufficient grounds to reject the transaction value and for enhancing the value of the goods. We do not see such discussions either in the order passed by the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we find that the enhancement of the value of goods cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside. Order accordingly. On perusal of the records it is seen that in the bill of entry, packing list as well as other documents the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that goods have been undervalued. It was also observed by adjudicating authority that there was difference in the quantity imported. Instead of 11,815 Kg. declared in the Bill of Entry by the appellant, the total weight was 11,900 Kg. The appellant waived the requirement for issuance of show cause notice. The adjudicating authority, on the basis of NIDB data and other documents, rejected the transaction value and enhanced the value to USD 0.075 per Kg. (Rs.13.01 per meter). The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty. The goods were ordered to be confiscated giving an option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. The adjudicating authority imposed Penalty of Rs.50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant has been provided copy of details of NIDB data. It is noted in the order that NIDB data is made part of the order as annexure to the order. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that they have not been given opportunity to defend the enhancement of value on the basis of NIDB data is without basis. There is much under valuation in the present case as the value declared was very much low than the actual value that is seen on the basis of details obtained from NIDB data. So also, there is mis-declaration with regard to the quantity of the goods imported. It is submitted that the enhancement of value, the Redemption Fine and Penalty imposed are legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue that arises for considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the records it is seen that in the bill of entry, packing list as well as other documents the quantity is declared in kilograms. However, payment of duty is on the basis of measurement in meters. On examination it was found that instead of 11,815 kilograms as declared by appellant, the total quantity imported is 11,900 kilograms. We note that the said difference in quantity is too low so as to allege intentional misdeclaration of the goods. There will be some variation in the quantity during the voyage of the goods. Taking into consideration these aspects as put forth by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, we hold that the allegation of mis-declaration of the goods cannot sustain. Consequently, the Redemption fine and penalty imposed are set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
