Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Mohammed Sahabudeen, M/s. Safi & Co. Versus CC (Port- Import) , Chennai

2016 (11) TMI 1200 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Valuation - rejection of transaction value of the import of “Lux” brand soaps declared by the appellant - Held that: - Ld. adjudicating authority at page 18 and 19 of the impugned order, has brought out the reason for disturbance of the declared value and applied Rule 4 (1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1998, stating reason therefor. There is no evidence led by appellant importer to controvert the action of the Authority and to rule out application of the said Rule. In absence of any material to 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

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 calculations were made by the authority at page-20 of the impugned as to the retail price of the offending goods. Looking 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

g the value for which he does not deserve any reduction in penalty - appeal is dismissed. - Appeal disposed off - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/316-317/2005 - FINAL ORDER No. 41578-41579/2016 - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - Shri D.N. PANDA, (J) Shri MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, (T) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate, For the applicant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), For the respondent Per: D.N. Panda The precise submission of the appellant in this appeal is that there was rejection of transaction value 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

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s jurisdiction. The imported goods were 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 i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version