9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue drew samples of those goods on 8.1.2008 for testing and sent to Central National Herbariam Botanical Survey of India, Howrah vide DRI letter F. No. 23/120/2007-DZE dated 16.1.2008. Upon testing vide laboratory report/letter dated 17.1.2008 it was intimated by the testing laboratory that the goods declared as Inula racemosa were Saussurea Lappa and the goods declared as Chinese Ginseng were actually Salam Panja. Such fact was admitted by the proprietor of M/s. Kartik Traders and Shri Saket Aggarwal in his statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Having the goods found mis-declared by description, Revenue proceeded to ascertain the value thereof. On query to Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, New Delhi, that Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962 read with rules 10 and 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of the Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 was rejected to re-determine the same as USD 27664 @ USD 1.235 per Kg, under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rules 5 & 6 of the Rules ibid. So also declared value for 'Salab Punja i.e. USD 720, @ USD 720 @ USD 1.8 per Kg. (which was mis-declared as 'Chinese Ginseng') under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rules 10 and 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of the Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 was rejected and value thereof re-determined as USD 1120, @ USD 2.8 per Kg, respectively under section 14 pf the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 4 of the Rules ibidi. (ii) Seized go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e differential duty and interest payable thereon by the importer, under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The amount of penalty stated to have already been paid by the importer shall stand appropriated towards the penalty so imposed. No penalty was imposed on Shri Satish Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kartik Traders. (v) Penalty of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousands only) was imposed on Shri Saket Aggarawal, r/o 369, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) I impose a penalty of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousands only) on Shri Praveen Aggarawal, r/o 369, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Kartik Traders, Saket, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.1.208 from Jt. Director of Botanical Survey of India proves that the goods imported was 'Saussurea Lappa' but not 'Inula racemosa'. Similarly, the goods 'Chinese Ginseng' was 'Salam Panja'. There was no rebuttal to such report. Nor the Jt. Director was cross examined by appellant. There is no specific defence and evidence to show by the appellant as to how the laboratory report of Botanical Survey of India was incredible. There was no copy of letter dated 23.8.2008 which is referred in page 170 of paper book brought to our notice to ascertain what were samples sent by appellant and whether such sample sent with the knowledge of D.R.I. Therefore, act of appellant to suit its requirement behind back of DRI goes against it. 8. When w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
