TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere found to be subject to MRP and valuation made by Department was rational considering minute details of sale price. Therefore, there is no necessity to intervene to the manner of valuation done by the department. Once misdeclaration of the value of import is established, confiscation was warranted. That has been done rightly. The levy of Customs duty on the determined value of ₹ 23,23,159/- has been levied. That is justified and does not require any interference Imposition of redemption fine - Held that: - there appears no basis provided by the authority nor the decision of that authority reasoned even though the authority looked into the weights and measures of law and also the character of the goods subject to MRP. Certain cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en under Section 112 (a) of the above Act. 2. According to the appellant, there was no material to enhance the declared value. Therefore, neither enhancement is sustainable nor any confiscation is warranted under law applying Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. So also, levy of penalty under Section 114A and Section 112 (a) of the said Act is uncalled for. 3. Revenue on the other hand says that there was wilful misdeclaration of value of import since the appellant itself provided the basis for enhancement of transaction value from its past import. Therefore, the evader does not deserve any consideration. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. Ld. adjudicating authority at page 18 and 19 of the impugned order, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of ₹ 23,23,159/- determined by Adjudicating Authority. While imposing redemption fine, we are guided by the Apex Court judgement in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex reported in 2011 (270) ELT 631 (S.C.). The authority shall calculate the redemption fine and appropriately realise that amount. The penalty of ₹ 5,80,264/- imposed under section 114A on the importer remain untouched. That is confirmed. Consequently the appeal of M/s. Safi Co. is partly allowed. 7. So far as the penalty on Shri Mohammed Sahabudden under Section 112 (a) is concerned, when the misdeclaration was proved, there shall be no interference to that. But so far as quantum thereof is concerned, that deserved consideration. The penalty imposed on h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
