TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order which determined the value on the basis of value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods – enhanced value sustained. Confiscation of goods - Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 – option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine - Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Imposition of penalty - Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that: - there is nothing to suggest that there was any deliberate mis-declaration of thickness. The invoice mentioned possible variation of up to 10%. There is no evidence that there was any deliberate design on the part of the appellant to mis-declare the thickness or that there was any collusion between the supplier and the appellant. Similar stand taken in the case M/s Sky ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... check procedure) the thickness was found to be 0.65 mm instead of 0.5 mm and 1.2 mm instead of 0.9 mm. The appellant was asked to explain the said difference but it did not submit any reply and waived the right to show cause notice and personal hearing. Accordingly the adjudicating authority held it guilty of mis-declaration and ordered confiscation of the impugned goods with option to pay redemption fine of ₹ 3.50 lakhs and also imposed penalty of ₹ 70,000/-. In addition, the assessable value was also enhanced as mentioned in the order reproduced above on the basis of NIDB data. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that. (i) CESTAT vide Order No. 51813/2016 dated 18.5.2016 in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice or hearing, we find nothing unsustainable in the adjudication order which determined the value on the basis of value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods of thickness 0.65 mm and 1.2 mm. This view is not in disharmony with the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Aggarwal Industries Ltd. (supra) (where the import had taken place at price as per the contract entered into between the importer and the supplier) nor is it in contradiction with the judgement of CESTAT in case of Topsia Estate (supra) as there was no contest by the appellant in the present case. Thus, the enhanced value is clearly sustainable. Coming to the issue of liability to fine and penalty in this case, Id. DR argued that the very fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
