9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the re-determination of the value, demand of differential duty and interest and equivalent mandatory penalty under section 114A in respect of the goods - the penalty under imposed in the impugned order section 114AA is reduced to rupees four lakhs - matter remanded to the Principal Commissioner solely for the purpose of calculation. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - DR. MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B.L. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Girijesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER M/s. Global Technologies and Research [Appellant] filed this appeal assailing the order-in-original [Impugned order] dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner whereby he decided the proposals in the show cause notice [SCN] dated 16.10.2018. 2. We have heard Shri B L Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Singh, learned authorised representative for the Department and perused the records. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are as follows. 3. Receiving intelligence that the appellant was grossly underval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose of the goods imported before and allowed the appeal of the Revenue, set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. 5. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal, the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 9385 of 2022 and by judgment dated 15 March 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the order of this Tribunal. Paragraph 10 of this judgment reads as follows: 10. Hence, in view of the findings recorded by the CESTAT, we find no error in the view taken. No fault can be found in the imposition of penalties. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. Thus, the issue attained finality insofar as the Bill of Entry dated 16.2.2018 is concerned. 7. The officers of SIIB also investigated the past Bills of Entry filed by the appellant and found it had filed the following seven Bills of Entry during January and February 2018 as follows in which it found the same undervaluation. S. No. Bill of Entry Date 1 4684794 15.1.2018 2 4687100 5.1.2018 3 4729014 9.1.2018 4 5011432 31.1.2018 5 5083301 6.2.2018 6 5213953 15.2.2018 7 5214459 15.2.2018 8. SCN dated 16.10.2018 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble G above totally valued at Rs. 2,62,60,195/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Two Lakh Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Five only) under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods have already been cleared were never seized, therefore, I refrain myself from imposing any redemption fine under section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I confirm the demand of differential customs duty amount of Rs. 57,15,514/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and fourteen only) from M/s Global Technology Research under section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) I confirm the demand for interest on total differential customs duty amount of Rs. 57,15,514/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and fourteen only) from M/s Global Technology Research under section 28 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (vii) I impose penalty of Rs. 57,15,514/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and fourteen only) from M/s Global Technology Research under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for their acts of willful misstatement, suppression of facts and collusion with the supplier for short payment of customs duty. (viii) I impose penalty of Rs. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. l) The appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 11. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue, made the following submissions. a) The question in this appeal is whether the Commissioner was correct in rejecting the transaction value and re-determining the value of the imported goods on the basis of imports of the same model goods by the same importer earlier. b) The impugned order was issued in pursuance of a follow up SCN. The issue was already decided by this Tribunal in appeal C/51848/ 2021 by order dated 29.9.2022. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9385 of 2022 by judgment dated 15 March 2024. c) Since the issue has attained finality, this appeal may be rejected and the impugned order may be upheld. d) The impugned goods were admittedly of Zhiyun brand only. Goods of the same brand were imported earlier but in these Bills of Entry they have been declared them as of unpopular brand instead of Zhiyunbrand . Investigation revealed that there was no product of Zhiyunknown as unpopular brand , neither was any low version of the product available in the market, and no product of the said brand was available at such l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Goods Quantity Declared Unit Rate ($) Declared total assesable value (Rs.) Duty paid (Rs.) Re-determined rate ($) CIF Re-determined total assesable value (Rs.) Duty re-determined (Rs.) Differential duty demanded (Rs.) Basis for re-determined value Bill of Entry No. 4684794 dated 5.1.2018 (Features of the model compared in Table B of the impugned order) Camera stand (3 Axis stabiliser with follow focus-unpopular brand) 100 50 390628 117790 385 2483250 748799 631009 Invoice GRT-2912 dated 4.12.2017 Bill of Entry No. 4687100 dated 5.1.2018 ( Features of the model compared in Table B of the impugned order) Camera stand (3 Axis stabiliser with follow focus-unpopular brand) 200 50 781256 235580 385 4966500 1497598 1262018 Invoice GRT-2912 dated 4.12.2017 Bill of Entry No. 4729014 dated 9.1.2018 (Features of the model compared in Table B of the impugned order) Camera stand (3 Axis stabiliser with follow focus-unpopular brand) 200 50 781256 235580 385 4966500 1497598 1262018 Invoice GRT-2912 dated 4.12.2017 Bill of Entry No. 5011432 dated 31.1.2018 ( Features of the model compared in Table B of the impugned order) Camera stand (3 Axis stabiliser -unpopular brand) 100 55 356400 107468 385 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring value as US$15 per piece which was re-determined as US$ 65 per piece in the impugned order based on contemporaneous imports as per invoice PI/5917/ZH dated 5.11.2017. (b) Camera stand (3 Axis stabiliser-Smooth 3 unpopular brand) : 53 pieces of this good were imported by Bill of Entry No. 4684794 dated 5.1.2018; declaring value as US$15 per piece and total assessable value as Rs.1,03,516/-. In the impugned order the assessable value was re-determined as Rs. 5,78,230/- based on market enquiry. (c) Mini- Camera stand (3 Axis Gimbal stabilizer for Gopro) : These were imported by Bill of Entry No. 4684794 dated 5.1.2018; declaring value as US$20 per piece which was re-determined as US$ 100 per piece in the impugned order based on contemporaneous imports as per invoice Invoice GRT-2912 dated 4.12.2017 (d) Camera stand (3 Axis smart phone stabiliser-Smooth Q): These were imported under Bills of Entry No. 5011432 dated 31.1.2018 and 5083301 dated 6.2.2018 and the declared value was US$ 49 per piece which has been re-determined in the impugned order as US$65 per piece based on contemporaneous imports by invoice no. PI/5917/ZH dated 5.11.2017. 17. We find that in the impugned order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
