TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act. Appeal dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52464 OF 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51223/2022 - Dated:- 16-12-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S.S. Arora and Ms. Harsimran Kaur, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Viswajeet Saharan, Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER The order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [ the Commissioner (Appeals) ] has been assailed in this appeal. The appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) to assail the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs rejecting the declared value in the Bill of Entry dated 12.10.2012 and after redetermining the same requiring the appellant to pay the differential duty with penalty and redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed upon the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The redemption fine has also been reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. This appeal has been filed challenging the demand of differential duty as also for setting aside the penalty and redemption fine. 2. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (8%) of M/s Spectro Analytical Labs Ltd and as per report, the material imported against B/E No. 8201053 dated 12.10.2012 was analyzed to have 75.3% of Tungsten content. In reply, he stated that he has gone through Test Report dated 22.11.2012, understood the same and has signed the same in token of having seen the contents; that as per this report, his material is having tungsten contents of 75.3% and the same has been verified from his supplier, who has also confirmed that the consignment was of high quality and he owns the same. (iii) He was asked that the material is of high tungsten content and the value declared by him for the purpose of levy of customs duty i.e. 12US$ per Kg is much lower and the correct value should be on higher side. In reply, he agreed and stated that it is fact that tungsten content in the material imported against above said B/E is 75.3% as per report shown to him and as admitted by him in his above answer accordingly material is having higher value. xxxxxxxxxxx 16. M/s Royal Businesses have imported total 12 consignments of Steel Bonded Cement Carbide including the current consignment. The Bill of Entry-wise details of imports showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus it is evident that the Noticee has intentionally tried to mislead the authorities by exhibiting the Carbide content in the Bill of Entry with an obvious motive to evade payment of appropriate amount of Customs duty leviable on such goods . The Noticee, in respect of the previous 11 Bills of Entry, by his own admission had imported the same goods from the same supplier and sold the same in cash to the same buyer in India. xxxxxxxxxx 27.2 In view of above stated facts and circumstances, mis-declaration by the Importer in respect of all the imports of Steel Bonded Carbide stands established. xxxxxxxxxxx 28.2 The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vide their letter No. DRI. F. No 29/XII4/2012-CI dated 25/4/12, has clarified that Tungsten Cemented Carbide is being imported on lower value to evade Customs duty. The CIF value suggested in this circular for the year 2011-12 ranges from 46.50 to 54.00 US$ per kg. This circular was also shown to Shri Mohd Faizal while tendering his statement on 27.12.2012. He was also informed that as per above letter, the Cemented Carbide tips and other articles of Cemented Carbide Steel are having value 46.5US$ per Kg (CIF) and as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 valued at Rs. 17,28,262/- (In words Rupees Seventeen Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two only). (vii) I refrain from imposing any Redemption Fine on goods valued at Rs.1,21,77,599.42 covered under 11 Bills of Entry since goods in these cases have not been seized. (viii) Impose a redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (in words Rupees Three Lakh only) in respect of Bill of Entry No. 8201053 dated 12.10.2012 under Section 125 of the Act. (ix) I order the appropriation of Rs 3,69,958/ deposited as differential duty in respect of Bill of Entry No. 8201053 dated 12.10.2012. (x) The Bank Guarantee No. 0333BG00000913 Dated 05-03-2013 of ICICI Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj, New Delhi furnished on 23-03-2013 at the time of provisional release of the seized goods, hereby ordered to be enforced and appropriated towards differential duty, interest, fine and penalty. (emphasis supplied) 4. It would be seen that the Joint Commissioner noted that the appellant, in the statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act, had admitted that a mistake was made in the Bill of Entry while mentioning the tungsten level and when the relevant data was shown that for tungsten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
