TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand order. However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so - the confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 is upheld - the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5% - appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL NOS: C/1029 to 1034 & 1040 to 1043/2009 - A/87839-87848/2018 - Dated:- 6-11-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for appellant nos. 1, 4 and 5 and none for other appellants Ms PV Sekhar, Joint Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew We dispose off nine appeals b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants challenged the validity of the market survey conducted in 2007 for determination of margin of profit in goods that had been imported in 1996 and the legality of ascertainment of assessable value of the goods through market survey that is not provided for in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 or the successor Rules of 2007. It is the contention of Learned Authorised Representative that the manner of ascertainment did not have to be compliant with the Rules framed under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 as the proceedings were not intended for determining duty liability but to ascertain fair redemption fine and penalty. 4. We find that proceedings initiated against most of the imports com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. However, such a survey, more than a decade after the import and, that too, after remand was ordered by the Tribunal, does not appear to the intent of the decision of the Tribunal. The remand order is specific in directing that the margin of profit, ascertained for computation of the fine, should be made known to the appellant. It is, therefore, the manner in which the original authority had, in the first instance, ascertained the margin of profit that was required to be supplied to the appellants. The original authority has patently failed to do so and has tried to rectify the deficiency of such ascertainment by a process that is not only bereft of validity but also inconsistent with the remand order. The Tribunal, in its remand order, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
