TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as misdeclaration, we hold that the goods are liable for confiscation. However, the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 9,00,000/- as against CIF value of approximately ₹ 22 lakhs which, in our considered view, is disproportionate. Ends of justice will be met if redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/- from ₹ 9,00,000/-. The appellant is required to discharge this redemption fine. As regards penalty imposed on this issue, we find that the penalty is also excessive and disproportionate. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and order accordingly. As regards the CVD payable based upon MRP, we find that the adjudicating authority has totally erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is directed against order-in-original CAO No. 55/2005/CAC/CC(I)/AKP dated 4.8.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant imported a consignment of tiles and declared them as glazed ceramic tiles claiming classification under heading 6908.90.90. The goods were assessed and on second check basis, duty was paid. During examination of the goods, it was noticed that the goods were not actually glazed ceramic tiles but were glazed vitrified porcelain tiles of UAE origin, which were indicated in the packages. As glazed vitrified porcelain tiles of UAE origin attracted anti-dumping duty, as imposed under Notification No. 73/2003-Cus., it was concluded that the importer-appellant had misdeclared the goods to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince there is no separate heading for glazed vitrified tiles under chapter heading 6908, hence they classified the same under 6908.90.90 as others. He would then take us through the bill of entry in relation to the imported goods that the description of the goods clearly indicates that they were glazed ceramic tiles and because the appellant omitted to mention the goods were vitrified does not mean there is misdeclaration on the part of the appellant. As regards the countervailing duty on the imported goods levied on the MRP basis, it is his submission that since the tiles which were imported were for personal use, the question of affixing MRP by the supplier or the appellant himself does not arise as if these goods are not resold. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards the liability to confiscation of the goods, we find that the appellant had declared the consignment as glazed ceramic tiles falling under heading 6908.90.90 and on an examination, it was found that they were glazed vitrified porcelain tiles of UAE origin. We find that Notification 73/2003-Cus. imposes anti-dumping duty on the import of vitrified and porcelain tiles other than vitrified industrial tiles originating or exported from UAE at a specific rate. The said notification indicates chapter heading as 6908. We find that the appellant himself has declared the chapter heading of the goods imported as 6908.90.90, hence the liability to pay anti-dumping duty arises. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CVD discharged by the appellant based upon the declared value + customs duty is correct and does not require any interference. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has arrived at MRP in a very unorthodox manner of calculating the same as 2.5 times of the CIF value of the consignment. There is no rationale behind such arrival of the MRP. In view of this, the findings of the adjudicating authority that CVD has to be paid on MRP determined seems to be incorrect and is liable to be set aside and we do so. 10. In short, the appeal of the appellant as regards the discharge of CVD based upon MRP basis calculated is allowed while the appeal of the appellant on the setting aside of redemption fine and penalty and anti-dumping duty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
