9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity, value and description of brand of importation of sports goods. The Bill of Entry No. 987225 dated 25.3.2006 was initially assessed on second appraisement based on the appellants declaration and the value was enhanced to Rs. 6.57 lakhs. Based on the intelligence, the SIIB of Customs examined the goods and found variations in the quantities and description. The appellants accepted the enhancement of value and the mis-declaration and waived both show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority in his order dated 18.7.2006 enhanced the value and demanded differential duty of Rs. 2,13,214/- and also confiscated the goods under section 111 (l) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of redemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962. He also submits that the appellants mere waiving of the show cause notice and personal hearing does not imply that they have admitted the mis-declaration of goods etc. The burden is on the department to prove that transaction value is wrong or mis-declared. In support if his contention, he relied on KhushiramBeharilal Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 1997 (94) ELT 129 and Commissioner Vs. Aggarwal Distributors (P) Ltd. - 2000 (122) ELT A121 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned AR for Revenue reiterated the adjudication order and the impugned order. He submits that the appellant not only mis-declared the value and the quantity but also the description. The SIIB has conducted detail investigation and recorded the statement. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have initially clearly admitted in their statement before the investigating authority and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority has dealt the issue both on the value as well as on mis-declaration in detail and clearly rejected the transaction value and sequentially proceeded to re-determine the value sequentially for Rule 4 to Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules. As rightly held by the lower appellate authority in his detail findings in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4, we do not find any merit in the appellant s contention on the enhancement of value of the goods. All the citations relied by the appellants on value based on NIIB data are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
