TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom US$ 0.80 per KG to US$ 1.40 per KG - Confiscation is legally sustainable as appellant did not have any import licence - Redemption fine determined on a reasonable basis having regard to margin of profit and penalty imposed is in no way arbitrary or unreasonable – Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.C/214/2010-CU[DB] - Final Order No.52823/2015 - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Mr. BB Sharma, DR : For the Respondent ORDER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 15.02.2010 in terms of which the value of the worn clothing imported vide Bill of Entry No.115447 dated 03.04.2009 was enhanced to US$ 1.40 per KG from US$ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). While the appellant assessee questioned the valuation and redemption fine and penalty, Revenue questioned the valuation arguing that the correct value should have been US$ 1.40 per KGs. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal accepted Revenue s contention and rejected the assessee s appeal and directed the primary adjudicating authority to look into the aspect of assessment, fine and penalty in view of the enhanced value at the rate of US$ 1.40 per KG. 4. In its appeal before the Tribunal the appellant has contended that upward revision of value to US$ 1.40 per KG or even to US$ 0.80 per KG was not as per law as the transaction value has to be accepted in the absence of any evidence to reject the same. It also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of US$ 0.80 per KG and the goods were released, it was not open for the appellant to contest the valuation of such goods. In this regard we partially reproduce para 4 from the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Grand Metal Industries Vs. CC, Amritsar (supra):- 4. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily foregoing the need for a Show Cause Notice, the appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the consented value in effect becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. To allow the appellant to contest the consented value is to put Revenue in an impossible situation as the goods are no longer available for inspection and Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on earlier having been consented, the onus will be on the appellant to establish that the valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged. Further, valuation of such goods requires their physical inspection and so re-assessment of value in the absence of goods will not be possible. 7. We however notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) further increased the value to US$ 1.40 per KG on the appeal filed by Revenue. The appellant had not consented for that value and we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had essentially gone by the recommendation of DRI about the valuation and has not indicated as to how that recommendation of DRI is applicable to the impugned goods in the framework of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
