9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: "ORDER 18.1 I order that the Description and CTH be amended in the Bills of Entry No. 6355837/04.01.2020 as "Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO)" and 27101932 respectively and the Bills of Entry be re- assessed accordingly. 18.2 I reject the declared value of Rs. 84,03,446/- under section 14 of Customs Act, 1952 read with Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. I order to re-determine the same as Rs. 1,58,30,792/-. 18.3 I confiscate the goods namely 425216 ltr. 'kerosene' of 18 1459.2018 imported under B/E No. 6355837 dated 04.01.2020 having total re-determined value at Rs. 1,58,30,792/-under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017-Cus dated 18.07.2017 vide Additional Commissioner's letter dated 05.03.2020. 2.3 Therefore, as the goods were found to be misdeclared, they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and seized under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 14.10.2020 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs SIIB(I), JNCH. 2.4 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner as per the order referred in para 1 above. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue also preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking enhancement of fine and penalty imposed. 2.5 Both the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Undisputedly, the Revenue authority drew a sample by panchnama dated 09.01.2020 randomly from the consignment imported by the appellant vide Bill of Entry No.6355837 dated 04.01.2020. The sample test report dated 10.1.2020 observed as follows: 4.3 On receipt of the test report, the appellant had vide their dated 17.01.2020 disputed the test report and requested for re- test of the sample. The copy of the said letter is reproduced below: 4.4 The request made by the appellant-importer was rejected as per letter dated 09.03.2020, which is reproduced below: 4.5 Central Board of Excise and Customs has vide Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all test reports, adverse or otherwise, shall be communicated to the importer or his authorized representative/Customs Broker immediately on its receipt. b. In case the importer or his agent intends to request the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs for a re-rest, then the same shall be made in writing to the said officer within a period of ten days from the receipt of the communication of the test results of the first test. Customs officers may take a reasoned view in case the importer or his authorized representative Customs Broker is unable to do so for reasons beyond his control. c. Where the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs grants an opportunity for a second test, he must clearly indicate in writing the nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd re-test provided the consignment is still within the customs control. However, this option should not be resorted to in every case of variation between the first test and re-test results. g. The facility of re-testing, is a trade facilitation measure, which should generally not be denied in the ordinary course. However, there might arise circumstances where the customs officer is constrained to deny the re-testing facility. Board expects that such denial would be occasional and on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. h. Where the re-testing procedure is done at the instance of the department instead of the importer, the above procedure shall be followed mutatis mutandis. 3. Difficulties, if any, in implem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
