9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2015 (received by department on 20.05.2015), the appellant has mentioned that they had paid the differential duty under pressure and in lieu of the early release of the detained goods. However, there is no denial in the said letter about the goods found in 40 feet container imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 were found to be freezers instead of display cabinets. There is no denial in the said letter that the goods were mis-declared as display cabinets under CTH 94035090 which were meant for wooden furniture. The value of freezers, found on examination, has been reassessed. There is nothing on record produced by the appellant to show that the reassessed value has been assessed in violation of statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Bill of Entry; though the quantity mentioned for display cabinets in Bill of Entry was same as three number of freezers found in the consignment. On being enquired, Shri Naveen Arora vide his statement dated 22.09.2014 had admitted the mis-declaration with the consequential liability. Though the partial differential customs duty amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- was got deposited on 23.09.2014, however, the appellant failed to provide the transaction value of the impugned consignment. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice No. 26/10/2014 dated 13.03.2015 along with the recalculation chart for the differential duty amounting to Rs.7,91,318/- based upon the reassessed value of the impugned goods was served upon the appellant. The show cause notice had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osecution on the part of the appellant who is not present even on the date of final submissions. 5. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the records, we observe that apparently and admittedly vide the Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014, the appellant had declared about importing three display cabinets classifying them under CTH 94035090. On examination of the consignment under the said Bill of Entry, there were found six freezers as follows: S. No. Description of goods CTH 1 Chest Freezer (WD-500) 84183010 2 Chest Freezer (WD-700) 84183010 3 Upright Freezer (LG-360XP) 84184010 4 Upright Freezer (LG-1000) 84186990 5 Upright Freezer (LG-230XP) 84184010 6 Upright Freezer (LG-1320) 84186990 along with the fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the statement admitting mis-declaration and under valuation. Admissions are best evidence and need no further proof as per Section 52 of Indian Evidence Act. 7. The value mentioned in the Bill of Entry was the value for display cabinets. The value of freezers, found on examination, has been reassessed. There is nothing on record produced by the appellant to show that the reassessed value has been assessed in violation of statutory provisions and to prove that value reassessed is not the market value of freezers. The adjudicating authorities below have also held that appellant has adduced no evidence to falsify the alleged mis-declaration which is per se apparent as instead of declared display cabinets, freezers were admittedly found stu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
