TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - C/2414/2011-SM - Final Order No. 20393 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. P.A. Augustian Adv Faizel Chambers, Pullepady Cross Road, Cochin Kochi Karala For the Appellant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the learned Commissioner has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 3/- lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 2/- lakh on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant filed a bill of entry da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be without any legal basis and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. On remand, the adjudicating authority considering the contemporaneous imports and also considering the Customs Valuation Rules came to the conclusion that the declared assessable value of ₹ 10,87,187/- is not correct and determined the assessable value at ₹ 18,22,769/- and also imposed fine of ₹ 3 lakh and penalty of ₹ 2 lakh. The appellant accepted the valuation done by the Commissioner but filed the present appeal challenging the imposition of fine and penalty. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing fine and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that it is a case where the appellant declared a value which was found to be undervalued and the customs authorities loaded the price and the same was accepted by the appellant. There is no material on record to show that the appellant has suppressed the material facts from the customs authorities. Further, I find that in similar circumstances, the customs has loaded the price but did not impose any redemption fine and penalty. The copies of the OIOs are on record and similarly in view of the Division Bench s decision of the Kolkata Bench cited supra, I am of the view that the imposition of fine and penalty in the present case is not justified. Therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
