TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s declared by him is established. - the plea of over valuation is not acceptable and the value adopted by the adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner(Appeals) is sustained as per law and does not warrant interference. In any case ignorance of law is no excuse not to follow something which is required to be done by the law in a particular manner. This principle has been recognized and followed by the Apex Court in a catena of its judgements. As regards pleading of applicant that heavy amount as fine and penalty has been imposed, Government finds that Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken a very lenient view and considerably reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 1,25,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- and personal penalty from ₹ 75000/- to ₹ 5000/- . As such there is no need to reduce the amount further and Government finds no reason for interference. - Revision application rejected - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.375/19/B/13-RA - ORDER NO. 25/2016-CUS - Dated:- 2-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by Mr. Sultan Bahardeen, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi vide Order-in Original No.311/2012 dated 22.08.2012 - (i) Allowed duty free clearance of the used personal effects and household goods collectively valued for ₹ 5 lakhs under Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1998. (ii) Ordered for confiscation of the dutiable goods valued at ₹ 7,52,750/- which included goods eligible under TR as well as not covered under TR Rules under Section Ill(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,25,000 /- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Clearance of goods eligible under TR Rules on payment of appropriate duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, ibid and clearance of non TR goods on payment of full rate of duty. (iv) Imposed personal penalty of ₹ 75,000/- on Shri Sultan Bahardeen under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3. The applicant deposited duty of ₹ 2,53,652/- vide TR-6 Challan No. 2996 dated 09.08.2012 and redemption fine of ₹ 1,25,000 /- plus penalty of ₹ 75,000/vide TR-6 Challan No. 2995 dated 09.08.2012 and got clearance of goods. 3. Being aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the entire goods should have cleared as duty free items, hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4.8 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority arbitrary determines the so called interim value of the goods and discarded the declared value for some of the goods contrary to the provision of Customs Valuation Rules. 4.9 That the adjudicating authority has not given any reason for holding that the seized goods were not bonafide baggage items. 4.10 That the adjudicating authority having seized the goods for valuation has failed to determine the value in accordance with law. 4.11 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority' has failed to appreciate that this was not a case calling for imposition of fine and penalty in as much as the goods were not concealed nor mis-declared and the goods are for the bonafide use of the Passenger itself. 4.12 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the fact that the redemption fine cannot be fixed without considering the margin of profit. That quantum of fine and penalty can be fixed only after considering margin of profit and accrued demurrage ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural justice at the time of personal hearing granted to him by the adjudicating authority on 07.08.2012 he accepted the value so arrived at and also agreed to pay the duty on the goods so assessed. That the value of the goods as assessed by the officers has not been disputed by him, undervaluation of goods is established. 5.3 That most of the goods totally value at ₹ 5,97,000/- were found not eligible to be cleared under TR Rules. That the applicant's contention that he was not aware that some of the goods are not covered under TR scheme is against the settled law that ignorance of law is no excuse. 5.4 That the applicant had knowingly mis-declared the goods w.r.t. value and quantity with malafide intention tried to seek clearance of non TR goods without payment of duty in the guise of household goods by declaring all the goods collectively valued at ₹ 85,000/-. That the appellate authority had already reduced the amount of fine and penalty considerably and a very lenience view had already been taken. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral written submission and perused the impugned Order-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required under rules and also in his voluntary statement dated 07.08.2012 has accepted the value arrived by the appraising officers and also agreed to pay duty on the goods so assessed. Since value of the goods as assessed by the officers has not been disputed by the applicant, undervaluation of the goods declared by him is established. Also no supporting document to substantiate the value of the goods has been produced, Government finds no infirmity in the method of valuation adopted by the Customs authorities. Hence, the plea of over valuation is not acceptable and the value adopted by the adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner(Appeals) is sustained as per law and does not warrant interference. 9. Government further observes that the applicant did not declare the exact description and quantity of the goods in as much as he has declared a show piece golden bird as flowers on the plea that it was packed in a box of flower shop. Also he did not declare the actual numbers of crystals on the plea that the word crystal item clearly means that there are a set of crystal pieces. The fact that the applicant claims to be the owner of the goods, the applicant's version ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
