9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of India, Ministry of Finance, in rejecting the Revision filed by the Petitioner. In the Revision, Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal. The Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 4 August 2008. These proceedings in which concurrent finding is rendered against the Petitioner arose from a seizure of assorted diamond studded jewellery pursuant to an action under Section 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. On 11 August 2006, the Petitioner arrived at Mumbai Airport from Johannesburg, South Africa. He had cleared himself through the green channel. The Petitioner was intercepted by Custom Officers on a tip-off. On interception, the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Appeal. The Joint Secretary further reduced the fine to Rs. 1,20,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The Petitioner is before us by this writ petition as against these orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly sought to contend that the invoices made the basis for the valuation by the Authorities are not the invoices but certificates of insurance value. This is a factual assertion, and it was not taken before the Revisional Authority. All the Authorities proceeded on the basis that the invoices were found along with the Petitioner when the jewellery was confiscated. We do not find anywhere from the order of the Revisional Authority that the point sought to be urged before us that they are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel relied on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Terai Overseas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2001 (134) E.L.T. 337(Cal.) to contend that if concurrent findings of fact are demonstrably perverse, this writ court is not precluded from interfering in writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent submitted that transactional value is the standard by which valuation of the goods is to be done, and this is made clear by Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel submitted that invoices found with the Petitioner showed that the amounts in South African Rand and taking the conversion value, the valuation arrived by the Respondent Authority is correct. Learned counsel pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue was evidenced in the form of purchase invoices/bills, recovered from the appellant himself, is already discussed in the above paragraph. Further there was no evidence of how much insurance charges were added to the invoice price. Even if this figure is separately available, there is no provision in the Valuation Rules to allow deduction of such charges. It was not the case of the appellant that the price included SA-VAT (and if so, how much). Therefore I find that the adjudicating authority made no mistake in adopting such transaction value." Even otherwise, if the report of the Trade Panel is to be made the foundation of, the same is not found reliable. The Authorities have commented on the same. The Commissioner has observed that fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
