TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediate past imports made by same appellant in two different names, its conscious knowledge to mis-declare value of import was established - The mis-declaration of value was willful in addition to mis-declaration of quantity - mis-declaration of quantity and value is established. Considering that the goods were not branded goods, it is considered proper that imposition of redemption fine of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and does not mean that Customs have power to totally disturb the declared value and determine the assessable value at ₹ 18,85,430.75 to impose differential duty of ₹ 3,88,202/-. Exorbitant redemption fine of ₹ 4 lakhs was also ordered. Similarly, penalty of ₹ 1 lakh was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. 2. Revenue supports the orders of the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that one Mr. Naresh Chandan was the importer of similar goods for his different firms in the immediate past i.e. four months prior to the present import made vide Bill of Entry No .422157 dt. 2.9.2002. Previous imports were made by one M/s. M.R. Associates, Rajasthan vide Bill of Entry No.391306 dt. 24.4.2002. That concern was belonged to the appellant only. Second unit of the appellant M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto the assessable value determined at ₹ 18,85,430.75 and considering that the goods were not branded goods, it is considered proper that imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) may not be unjustified. We order accordingly. 8. Law is well settled that, in cases of mis-declaration, confiscation being warranted, we do not interfere to the quantum of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
