TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of these two containers - Since from the previous imports it is seen that the goods were imported for higher value, we find that there is no requirement for interfering with the enhancement of value. Thus, the differential duty demand of ₹ 93,261/- in respect of Bill of Entry dated 26.08.2003 is sustained and therefore, the conclusion that the goods in these two containers are liable for confiscation does not require interference. Redemption fine u/s 125 of CA - Held that:- The redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is on the higher side. The enhancement of value being only marginal, we are of the view that the redemption fine can be reduced to ₹ 30,000/-. Penalty u/s 112(a) of CA - Hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for supply to the local market. On receipt of information that the appellants were indulging in under-invoicing by misdeclaring the Denier of VFY, they were kept under watch by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB). When the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 524213 dated 26.08.2003 to take delivery of two containers out of the 7 containers imported by them, the matter was taken up for investigation by SIIB. The investigation team drew the samples from the cargo and sent them for analysis. The premises of the appellant at Bangalore and other premises were searched, apart from recording statements. It was found that the two containers for which Bill of Entry dated 26.08.2003 was filed, contained VFY of 600 Denier and 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared for the past 12 Bills of Entry to the tne of ₹ 78,54,969/- was rejected and re-determined as ₹ 1,61,41,962/- in Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Thus, a differential duty of ₹ 39,38,116/- was confirmed in respect of the 12 Bills of Entry and an equal penalty was imposed under Section 114A of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order impugned herein reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 1,50,000/- and the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) to ₹ 50,000/-. Hence, this appeal. 3.1 On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri. V. M. Doiphode appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that in respect of the goods in two containers for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption i.e., 600D. Therefore, the conclusion of the Department in respect of the goods regarding all the 12 Bills of Entry that the same were misdeclared by the appellant, cannot sustain. 3.4 The Department has reached such conclusion by merely relying upon the statement given by Shri. Krishna Gopal S. Soni, who is the partner of the appellant. Such statement was obtained by force and coercion and was not a voluntary statement. Within a few days, the said person had appeared before the Magistrate to give statement that what was deposed by him was under coercion and threat and thus retracted his earlier statement. Therefore, the earlier statement given by the said partner Shri. Krishna Gopal S. Soni is not admissible in law. The demand con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in evasion of Customs Duty by undervaluing the goods. That the demand of differential duty , confiscation as well as imposition of penalties in respect of 2 Bills of Entry dated 26.08.2003 is correct and proper. With regard to the earlier imports vide 12 Bills of Entry, it is brought out that the description of the goods in 2 Bills of Entry does not tally with Master Bill of Lading. It can therefore be presumed that appellant was continuously indulging in misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods. The statement given by partner Shri. Krishna Gopal S. Soni supports this. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The allegation is that the appellants have misdeclared the Viscose Filament Yarn imported by them and also undervalued the said goods and ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry showed declaration as 600D only. In the remaining 10 Bills of Entry, the Master and House Bill of Lading shows the same description i.e., 600D. The conclusion of Department that in all the 12 Bills of Entry there is discrepancy, is only on the basis of the statement of Shri. Krishna Gopal S. Soni. It is seen that the said person has retracted the statement before the Judicial Magistrate within a few days of tendering the statement before the Customs Officer. Further, he filed detailed written submission putting forward that the imports have been made proper without misdeclaration and under-invoicing. The statement recorded by the partner alone cannot be made the basis for arriving at the conclusion that the goods imported in all the 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
