9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that are relevant for our consideration are that the appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 4558159 dated 05.02.2014 for goods declared as 4,12,400 pieces of used jute bags weighing about 75 kgs., at USD 0.07/- per piece, for which the declared assessable value was Rs.18,33,947/- and self-assessed duty was Rs.5,29,128/-. 3.2 The impugned goods were subjected to first check and based upon the examination by the Shed Officers, the Revenue entertained a doubt that the declared value of the goods was liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and thus, re-determined the value under Rule 9 ibid. considering the contemporaneous imports of similar goods as per NIDB. It has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. 7. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed before this forum. Both the Ld. Representatives concede that the Revenue has not challenged the order of the first appellate authority. 8. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant inter alia on the following grounds: - * The order of the first appellate authority is contrary to law, the weight of evidence and probabilities of the facts of the case. * It was incumbent upon the Assessing Group to have, after due verification in terms of Section 17(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, permitted clearance of the impugned goods in terms of the declaration made by the appellant and verification conducted by the Proper Officer. * It is only when on verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962 or the Rules made thereunder or any provision of any other law for the time being in force. In the instant case, what is being alleged is import of goods which are used in nature and prohibited for imports in terms of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, Section 125 ibid. categorically states that the redemption fine imposed under the said Section shall not exceed the market value of the goods, less the duty payable on such goods. The adjudicating authority having not undertaken any such exercise of ascertaining the market value of the goods, the imposition of redemption fine is without the authority of law; the first appellate authority vide impugned order ought to have v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nced value suggested by the adjudicating authority. Had there been an objection at that point of time, then there was a possibility of the adjudicating authority having gone into the issue by conducting a detailed examination, but that letter dated 26.02.2014 of the appellant estopped any further action by the adjudicating authority. Perhaps a strategic move by the appellant, but that may be a non-issue now. 12. Be that as it may; we shall now deal with the redemption fine and penalty which has been questioned here, by the appellant, through this appeal. 13.1 It is the settled position of law that the imposition of redemption fine cannot be disproportionate or arbitrary and, in any case, the same cannot exceed the market value of the prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
