TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of inadvertent supply by the foreign supplier is not based on the facts and circumstances available on record - redemption fine and penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant. - Customs Appeal Nos. 62 -63 & 2407 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 50681-50683/2017 - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Mr. Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) Shri A K Prasad, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the Respondent ORDER These three appellants namely, Smt Renu Sharma, proprietor, Ravi Kiran Singh and RV Fashions (RVF) are in appeal against order in original No. 158/11 dated 15.12.11 passed by Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Delhi whereunder imported goods were confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se samples of CRCL states that both the samples answered the test for starch. v. Since there were conflicting reports of the CRCL, the department sent the remnant samples in respect of all the four test reports for re-test to the CRCL. Vide letter dated 06.06.2011, the CRCL reiterated their original findings. Taking these re-test reports and adopting the value of one consignment @ US $ .900 per Kg (1 US$= ₹ 44.90) holding them to be synthetic diamond powder and further taking into account 780 Kgs of White Colour Powder which on laboratory test was found to be other than starch (valued at ₹ 1,34,414/- involving Customs duty of ₹ 1,34,414/-), the total demand was quantified to ₹ 39,83,541/-. vi. The case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue reiterates the findings given in the impugned order. He further emphasized the following: (i) On first physical examination of the goods conducted on 16.11.10, one sample was found as greenish powder. (ii) Both the samples drawn vide test memo No. 43 and 44 both dated 18.11.10 were sent to CRCL New Delhi. For both these samples, the test reports of CRCL are against the appellants and indicated that the goods are other than starch . 6. After careful examination of the facts of the case, the submissions of both the sides and the case law cited, it appears that this is a clear case of mis-declaration of goods, where instead of declared goods starch , the appellant-importer imported synthetic diamond powder (greenish in colour) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner in the impugned order inter alia observes as under: 24. I find that It is on the records Smt Renu Sharma Prop of M/s. RVF vide her letter dated 24.2.2011 also enclosed copy of letter dt. 23.2.2011 of M/s. West Miller Industrial Ld., Hongkong, wherein it has been clearly stated and admitted that some other material were wrongly dispatched to her firm. The noticee No. 1 also stated in her statement that she had seen the goods but she had never seen starch of greenish colour. This clearly establishes that goods in question were not starch which obviously was in the knowledge of M/s. RVF. Therefore there are reasons to believe and establish beyond doubt that the goods had been misdeclared by M/s. RVF with intent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. RVF who filed the B/Es in this case never came forward to join the investigation. The proprietor of M/s. RVF noticee No. 1 in her statement dated 25.01.2011 had promised to produce him before the customs, but she also failed to do so. She in her statement had taken full responsibility of any liabilities of any customs duty arise due in respect of goods covered under the above said B/Es. She also stated that she had not seen starch of greenish colour and shown her full confidence on the report of the Jewellery Appraiser. In view of the above, the allegations made against the notices in the show-cause notice are established. The judgements in the matter of K.I Pavunny Vs. Assistant Commissioner (1997 (90)ELT.241(SC) and Gulabchand Sil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence as the basis of arriving at a given decision. Reference in this regard is invited to the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal/ High Court and reference is invited to the following:- GTC Indus. Vs. CC. Cus [2011 (264) ELT 433 (Tri-Del)] Siddhacham Exports 2011 (263) ELT 120 (Tri-Del) Imperial Trading 2010 (253) ELT 373-Bom. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Smt. Renu Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. RVF and Shri Ravi Kiran Singh were instrumental in perpetuating the illegal import of goods. 8. The appellants are also taking the plea that the mis-declared goods were inadvertently supplied by the foreign supplier, therefore, no penalty or redemption fine was imposable. However, there a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
