Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Sultan Bahardeen, New Delhi Versus Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi

2016 (7) TMI 417 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Valuation - redemption fine and penalty - Claim of benefits of Transfer of Residence (TR) under Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1998. - The goods were found mis declared, undervalued and in commercial quantity, therefore, the same were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Held that:- the applicant in his grounds of appeal has contended that valuation of the goods was not based on the invoices provided by him. Government observes that the valuation of the goods has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een disputed by the applicant, undervaluation of the goods 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 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/282/2013 dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals) New Delhi, with respect to Order-in-Original 311/2012dated 22.08.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs, (Airport) Bangalore. 2. Mr. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ery Furniture, 30,000 Miscellaneous household goods Sony LCD 46" 20,000 On 18.07.2012 the goods were examined by Custom officer and found as under: A.Goods covered under TR Scheme (i) Used Personal Effects and Household goods valued ₹ 5 lakhs which were exempted under Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1998; (ii) TV Plasma 65', AC Panasonic, Panasonic Blue Ray Disc. Theatre (one piece each item) total valued ₹ 86,000/- which were eligible concessional rate of duty amounting to  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

valued and in commercial quantity, therefore, the same were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of Shri Sultan Bahardeen was recorded under Section 108 of the Act ibid wherein he admitted that he was not aware that some of his goods were not covered under TR Scheme. 2.2. The applicant reiterated that he does not want Show Cause Notice in the matter. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi vide Order-in Original No.311/2012 dated 22.08.2012 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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/vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ollowing grounds: 4.1 That the order is not legal or proper. 4.2 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that the applicant has not imported any items which attract the provisions of Section 111 (2) or Section 111 (d) of Customs Act. 4.3 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that when the invoice value of the goods are acceptable as the transaction value, the presumption is that the goods are in the possession and use of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

word crystal items clearly means that there are a set of crystal pieces mit never convey a message that there is only one piece. That when applicant admitted the invoice value as basic value for said items, allegation of these goods as mis-declared goods are unsustainable. 4.6 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that the golden bird mentioned in panchnama, was a showpiece item brought from a flower shop and the time of packing it was kept in the box supp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hout considering the margin of profit. That quantum of fine and penalty can be fixed only after considering margin of profit and accrued demurrage charge in such cases. That the items are not brought for any trading purpose therefore, the question of profit doesn't arise. 4.13 That the adjudicating authority arbitrary determined the value at higher rate and the appellate authority the same hence applicant is entitled to get refund of excess duty with interest from the date of payment. 4.14 T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctual use of the importer and where the import is not for profit motive, penalty cannot be imposed. {1998 (102) ELT 746 Tribunal}. Thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Personal hearing in this case held on 03.09.2015 and 18.09.2015 was attended by Mr. P.A. Augustian, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application and stressed that the valuation of the goods is on the higher side and the value as declared be accepted and duty may be asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tal item clearly means a set of crystal pieces. That his version of keeping a show piece in the box of a flower shop and then declaring it as flowers and presumption of set of crystals by declaring it crystal item is not convincing and legally tenable. 5.2 That the value of goods not covered under Transfer of Residence Rules has been worked out at ₹ 5,97,000 /- which the applicant had failed to declare on the baggage declaration form. That vide his statement dated 07.08.2012 and also consi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntention 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 penal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mination the goods were found mis-declared, undervalued and in commercial quantity, therefore, the same were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of Shri Bahardeen was recorded under Section 108 of the Act ibid wherein he admitted that he was not aware that some of his goods were not covered under TR Scheme. As the applicant did not want Show Cause Notice in the matter, therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi vide Order-in-Original .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1962; 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 and imposed personal penalty of ₹ 75,000/- on Shri Sultan Bahardeen under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A) Cus/282/2013 dated 29.04.2013 reduced the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ger and by physical examination of the goods. The applicant failed to declare the true value of the goods brought by him 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 substa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lden 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 of keeping a show piece in the box of a flower shop and then declaring it as flowers instead of a golden bird and presumption of set of crystals by declaring it crystal item is not c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version