TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity in the decision of the lower appellate authority upholding the enhancement of the value of the imported goods - also, the lower appellate authority has sufficiently justified the reduction of redemption fine and penalties. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/428/2010, C/78/2011 - Final Order No. 40500-40501/2018 - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Both these appeals since emanating from the same impugned order, they are taken up for common disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. True Impex, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 125 and Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the enhancement of value by the adjudicating authority was upheld. Hence, M/s. True Impex has filed appeal No. C/78/2011 aggrieved by the enhancement of the declared value and against imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The department has filed appeal No. C/428/2010 aggrieved by the reduction of redemption fine and penalty. 3. On 27.02.2018, when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel, Shri A.K. Jayaraj reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submits that the customs authorities have not followed the Customs Valuation Rules and other statutory provisions and have rejected the transaction value declared on the basis of commercial invoices, without any b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2007. In respect of the remaining goods, he has also taken note of the fact that the importer has accepted the above values for the purpose of assessment. Enhanced value of ₹ 31,59,787/- has been adopted as per Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. We also find that as per prara 5.01 of the adjudication order, Shri Thoufeeq Ibrahim, Proprietor of M/s. True Impex vide his statement dated 07.09.2010 and letter dated 13.09.2010 has accepted his offence and requested to decide the case without issuing the SCN and extending personal hearing. 6.2 Viewed in this light, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the lower appellate authority upholding the enhancement of the value of the imported goods. At the same time, we find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
