TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods brought by the applicant were prohibited (Beta Methazone Dipropionate powder) and in commercial quantity (assorted electronic goods), and hence do not constitute bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provision of Para 2.20 of EXIM Policy in force - Provision for re-export of baggage is available u/s 80 of the CA, 1962. However, as this will apply only in the case of declared bona fide baggage, the applicant is not eligible for re-export of impugned goods. Revision application rejected - decided against applicant. - F. No. 373/72/B/2012-RA-Cus - 17/2015-Cus - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Ms. Rimjhim Prasad, Joint Secretary Shri S. Palanikumar, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by Sh. Abdul Samad Hithayaththulla, (hereinafter referred to as applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 434/2012, dated 23-5-2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, with respect to Order-in-Original No. 25/2011, dated 18-7-2011 passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs, (Airport) Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a frequent traveller. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onic and he is claiming the same and also willing to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine and also request to permit him to re-export the same. 4.4 That since the seized Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder valued at ₹ 1,43,680/- does not belong to the applicant and he is abandoning the same and hence he has no objection to confiscate the same. 4.5 That he brought goods of lesser value, however the officers assessed the value of the goods on higher side. Original valuation of the seized electronic goods is ₹ 24,20,100 but the authority enhanced the value to ₹ 43,26,400 for which no materials were available before the authority. 4.6 That there is no evidence before the adjudication authority to enhance the value of the goods from ₹ 24,20,100 to ₹ 43,26,400. Further the adjudication authority before passing the adjudication order ought to have asked the department on what basis the goods had been revalued and how authority enhanced the value from ₹ 24,20,100 to ₹ 43,26,400. Without asking anything the authority mechanically passed the adjudication order and the appellate authority also failed to look into the same and simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prices are unworthy and not reliable documents to calculate the value, though the adjudication authority are well aware that the same is not reliable material. However, the adjudication authority is relied upon the value displayed in the internet is against the verdict of the Supreme Court. If any orders/judgments passed by the Apex Court is binding on the adjudication authority or Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 4.11 That the applicant has relied upon following case laws in support of its request for re-export : Mukadam Rafique Ahmed, 2011 (270) E.L.T. 447 (GOI). Mohamed Irsath, Order No. 269/2011-Cus., dated 5-9-2011 (GOI). Mohamed Ramzan, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 207 (GOI). Escorts Harson Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 599 (Tri.-Mumbai). Jamal Allapitchai, Order No. 109/2004, dated 31-3-2004 (GOI). Jabban Ilyas Others, Order Nos. 212-221/2007, dated 27-4-2007 (GOI). 4.12 That the Hon ble Supreme Court (full Bench) has delivered a judgment on 30-9-2011 [2011 (272) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2011 (24) S.T.R. 257 (S.C.)] in Om Prakash s case v. UOI wherein it is categorically stated that the main object of the enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al with Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original vide Order-in-Appeal dated 23-5-2012. Now, the applicant has challenged the impugned Order-in-Appeal on the grounds stated in Para 4 above. 8. Government notes that basic facts and findings are not disputed in this application. The applicant has cited various cases/judgments and has made submissions that valuation is too high and requested to allow re-export of the impugned electronic goods on reduced personal penalty/fine. Government finds that the applicant, arrived at Chennai Airport from Colombo with electronic goods, etc. in trade quantity along with chemical substance known as Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder, which he initially abandoned at the airport. The applicant obtained Anticipatory bail from Hon ble High Court of Chennai vide CWP No. 859/2011. Only after directions were issued by the Hon ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai that he appeared before the Customs authorities and subsequently claimed ownership of the impugned goods. 9. Government notes that import of Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder does not constitute bona fide baggage and its import is prohibited without an Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , etc. and also based on information from the internet downloads (NIDB Data) after allowing the usual rebate, which is correct. The Apex Court in the case of Auto Stores v. CC (Export), Mumbai has held that available NIDB data of comparable goods to be adopted for assessment - 2014 (305) E.L.T. A75 (S.C.). Moreover, the applicant was given more than adequate opportunities to substantiate his claim after the Seizure of the impugned goods and the issue of show cause notice which has been issued to the applicant by a further extended period of six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the applicant failed to produce any invoice or any other documentary evidence in support of his contention. As no supporting document to substantiate the value of electronics goods has been produced, Government finds no infirmity in the method of valuation adopted by the Customs authorities. Hence, the plea of overvaluation 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. 12. As regards the plea of the applicant to reduce the redemption fine and personal penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
