TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 2 Lacs has been imposed on the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 859681 on which the differential duty works out to only ₹ 13,103/- computed on the basis of undervaluation of 10%. As the redemption fine as a general principle has a nexus with the margin of profit and the goods were otherwise freely importable, we find the redemption fine to be excessive in the wake of the facts that the duty evaded due to undervaluation was only ₹ 13,103/-. We are of the view that given the level of undervaluation (just 10%) and the amount of duty sought to be evaded (Rs.13,103/-), redemption fine of ₹ 20,000/- is reasonable. However as penalty has been imposed in view of the duty evaded on imports under all the 29 Bills of Entry, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty amounting to ₹ 2,37,003/- evaded by M/s. DJP International, New Delhi under Section 28 (proviso clause) of Customs Act, 1962 and further order to appropriate the said amount of ₹ 2,37,003/- already deposited by the importer vide TR-6 challan no.5607 dt. 18.01.10 towards payment of differential duty. (iv) I impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under section 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s DJP International, New Delhi. Since, the firm is proprietorship firm and penalty has already been imposed on the firm, I refrain from imposing penalty on the Proprietor. (v) I demand and order to recover the interest on applicable rates under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are referred to in the following paras (iii) the statement was recorded in the compelling circumstances (iv) the order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and (v) the redemption fine imposed is excessive and no penalties is imposable. 4. The Revenue contended that having voluntarily admitted the short levy and having also paid the same and having requested for not being issued a Show Cause Notice, it is not open to the appellant to claim that the principles of natural Justice had been violated and that the valuation has not been done in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that as per the Panchnama drawn on 11.01.2010 the under declaration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y voluntarily admitting undervaluation and the short levy as per the chart which has been reproduced in the primary adjudication order, the value adopted for computing the short levy became the true transaction value declared by the proprietor of the appellant himself. The Supreme Court judgements in the case Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. C.C., Mumbai [2000 (122 ) ELT 321 (SC)] and CC, Calcutta Vs.South India Television [2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC)] cited by the appellant do not come to his rescue. In those judgements, the Supreme Court held that the valuation has to be determined in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. This legal position is well settled but the legal requirement to do so arises only when there is a lis or dispute abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uggest that the loaded value was accepted by them only for the purpose of clearance of the goods and that they reserved their right to challenge the same subsequently. They settled their duty liability once for all and paid the duty amount on the loaded value of the goods. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sounds N. Images, (supra) is not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. The benefit of this ratio could be taken by them only if they had contested the loaded value at the time when it was done, but not now after having voluntarily accepted the correctness of loaded value of the goods as determined in the presence of their Representative/Special Attorney and paid the duty thereon accordingly. (emphasis added) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
