TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the Director of the respondent. The main thrust of the argument raised by the respondent was not on value but on the quantum of fine and penalty ordered after confiscation of the impugned export goods. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the value as determined by the adjudicating authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/51290/2016-CU(DB) - C/A/54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Subsequently, the respondent applied for withdrawal of consignment. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who allowed withdrawal of the consignment by imposing redemption fine of ₹ 16 lakhs and a penalty of ₹ 4 lakhs under section 114 of the Customs Act 1962. When the order of the adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (A), he passed the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the value has been appraised without any basis. No market survey has been conducted to arrive at the correct value of the export consignment. Consequently, they prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. Eight shipping bills have been filed by the respondent after entering goods for exports described as readymade garments. Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value as determined by the adjudicating authority. 8. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 16 lakhs to ₹ 2.5 lakhs and penalty from ₹ 4 lakhs to ₹ 75,000/-. The reasons given by him are: i) The value has been determined without adopting objective parameters and without any market enquiry, ii) The appellant has incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
