9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by redemption on payment of ₹ 10,00,000 along with penalty of ₹ 20,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 -. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, they had not been put on notice of intent to convert conditional confiscation into absolute along with change of the cause for confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT:- The first appellate authority enhanced the gravitas of confiscation but that is, by no stretch, in violation of principles of natural justice nor in breach of procedure set out in section 128A of Customs Act, 1962. The stipulation therein is contingent upon absence of prior notice and operates with the presumption that appeal of jurisdictional authorities would be triggered by dropp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct diamonds be called into question by consequence of absolute confiscation. In any case, the lack of match in the certificate is not a ground for absolute confiscation of the impugned goods. It would have been appropriate for checks to be carried out with the authority concerned instead of adopting such precipitate action. The absolute confiscation is, therefore, set aside. The original authority had confiscated the goods under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 which comes into play for misdeclaration of particulars in the bill of entry. Valuation of imported goods, in accordance with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and with rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, is, doubtlessly, an approxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods, along with others fastened on to them, in proceedings arising from alleged overinvoicing of three lots of rough diamonds from among the seven lots imported against bill of entry no. 2441859/15.03.2019; these seven lots were covered by two invoices JS001/19 dated 12th March 2019, comprising two lots, and JS002/19 dated 12th March 2019 with both lots in the former, of average per carat value of US$ 19 and US$ 27 ascertained by the designated trade panel to be US$ 6 and US$ 15 respectively, and one in the latter, of average per carat value of US$ 11.60 ascertained similarly to be US$ 4 being of concern to customs authorities. Oddly, the proceedings before the original authority, culminating in adjudication order re-determining the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the importer before the first appellate authority appeared to have been prompted by confiscation of goods that could be re-exported only by redemption on payment of ₹ 10,00,000 along with penalty of ₹ 20,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and by reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Mahalaxmi Gems [2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC)]. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain is before us challenging the rejection of appeal by the first appellate authority. 3. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, they had not been put on notice of intent to convert conditional confiscation into absolute along with change of the cause for confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. It was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng but notice of potential outcome for undoing the unalloyed contents of the order appealed against. 6. There is no doubt that the Kimberley Process Certificate (KPC), submitted for the entire consignment, did refer only to one of the invoices; however it did match the total weight of the two lots. The limited remit of the said certificate is to suppress trade in conflict diamonds and, indeed, notwithstanding its utility for that purpose, deprivation of title to such goods does not appear to be contemplated by law. We also find it ironic that goods which, most certainly, should end up ceasing existence, is, by the impugned order, regularised as property of the Central Government through an appellate process and, if the confiscation does sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bill of entry. Valuation of imported goods, in accordance with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and with rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, is, doubtlessly, an approximation of its worth but is sanctified when determined in compliance of the statutory procedure; it is only upon the appropriateness of the method adopted or preceding procedure that re-determination may be challenged. The importer had foregone the opportunity to be placed on notice before substitution of the value and, hence cannot cry foul upon finding rendered. At best, only the computation becomes challengeable. There is nothing on record to indicate such challenge. The adoption of appraised value, while relevant for in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
