TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. The appellant had indeed declared the value of the goods incorrectly and on being pointed out agreed to reassessment of duty and waived his right to show cause notice and personal hearing. The appellant also undertook to pay the fine and penalty. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not required to issue a speaking order. The reassessment of the duty is final as it was uncontested. Considering the declared value was only about 2% of the actual value as re-determined, it is found that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in confiscating the goods under Section 111 (m). Quantum of redemption fine - HELD THAT:- Second proviso to Section 125 places an upper limit of fine that it should not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. In this case, the assessable value of the goods which are confiscated is ₹ 9,21,951/- and the penalty imposed was only ₹ 2 lakhs, which was further reduced to ₹ 1 lakh by the First Appellate Authority. The amount of fine imposed is, therefore, only about 11% of the assessable value which given the facts and circumstances of the case is just and fair. Penalty u/s 112 (a) of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I confiscate the goods covered under AWB No. 808815275160 and relevant Bill of Entry No. 406577 dated 06/05/2016, having re-determined value of ₹ 9,21,951/- under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the said Act. (iii) I also impose a penalty of ₹ 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousands only) on the importer under Section 112 (a) read with 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) The redemption fine and penalty shall be in addition to the Customs duty leviable on the goods alongwith applicable interest . 4. The appellant appealed to the First Appellate Authority who, by the impugned order, partly modified the order of the Original Authority reducing the redemption fine from ₹ 2 Lakhs to ₹ 1 Lakh and also reducing the penalty imposed upon the appellant under Section 112 (a) from ₹ 90,000/- to ₹ 40,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal is filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they do not require any personal hearing. They also agreed to pay the fine and penalty. Accordingly, the value of the goods was enhanced from ₹ 15,141/- (as declared by the appellant) to ₹ 9,21,951/-. Correspondingly, the customs duty on the imported goods was re-assessed from ₹ 2,634/- (as per declaration) to ₹ 1,60,327/-. The goods were ordered to be confiscated for mis-declaration under Section 111 (m) and were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 2 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. This fine was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. one lakh. A penalty of ₹ 90,000/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act which was reduced to ₹ 40,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 7. Learned Departmental Representative submits that this is a case of re-determination of the duty under Section 17 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 which authorises the Assessing Officer to reassess the duty leviable based on verification, examination, testing of the goods or otherwise. Section 17 (5) specifically states that a speaking order on the reassessment has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gave its consent to the value proposed by Revenue and expressly stated that it did not want any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Even the duty was paid without protest. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily foregoing the need for a Show Cause Notice, the appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the consented value in effect becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. To allow the appellant to contest the consented value now is to put Revenue in an impossible situation as the goods are no longer available for inspection and Revenue rightly did not proceed to further collect and compile all the evidences/basis into a Show Cause Notice as doing so, in spite of the appellant having consented to the enhancement of value and requested for no Show Cause Notice, could/would have invited allegation of harassment and delay in clearance of goods. When Show Cause Notice is expressly foregone and the valuation is consented, the violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged. In the present case, while value can be challenged but such a challenge would be of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o examine the matter as if the assessing officer had enhanced the declared value on the basis of other factors and not on the acceptance by the importers. This casual observation is not based on the factual position that emerges from the records of the case . 9. We have considered the submissions on both the sides. 10. The facts are not in dispute. The goods were imported declaring a certain value which was doubted by the officers and so the goods were opened and examined. After opening and examining and comparing the goods with the value of corresponding goods in contemporaneous imports the officer founds that the goods were mis-declared in terms of value. Therefore, he sought to reassess the duty. Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act requires the officer to pass a speaking order in case of reassessment unless the importer accepts the reassessment in writing. In this case, the importer accepted the reassessment in writing. Further he also gave in writing that he does not want a show cause notice or a personal hearing. He further undertook to pay fine and penalty. The extent of undervaluation found by the officers was substantial. The declared value was only ₹ 15,141/- whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act (b) ...... ........... shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher : Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so determined; (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
