9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Commissioner (Appeals) in so far he has upheld the confiscation of goods and redemption fine on main appellant and on co-appellant, a personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the admitted undervaluation of imported goods. 1.1 Brief Facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the import of food supplements from a US based firm M/s. Ultimate Nutrition. Investigation by the DRI revealed that bogus invoices were generated of his supplier showing lesser value of goods and same were submitted for filing Bills of Entry. Following the investigation, the Appellant were issued two show cause notices dated 04.10.2018 and 14.11.2019. Against the show cause notice dated 14.11.2019 wherein the differential duty dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees One Crore Twenty Nine Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only) in respect of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5861314 dated 12.04.2018 and order to re- determine the same as Rs. 1,30,15,250/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) (as per Table 8 in Para 16.2 of the Show Cause Notice), under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (determination of value of the imported goods) Rules, 2007. (iv) I hold the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5961314 dated 12.04.2018, seized and valued at Rs. 1,30,15,250/-, as detailed in Table-B of the SCN, liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N Mukhi, Gulmohar Building, Plot No. 234, 28 Road, Bandra West Mumbai, Maharashtra under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 19. This order is issued without prejudice to any other action which may be contemplated against the importer or any other person under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and rules/regulations framed thereunder or any other law for the time being in force in the Republic of India." Against the aforesaid order the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were rejected. Therefore the present appeals filed by the appellants. 2. Shri Neerav Mainkar, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that on receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2019, an application was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or misrepresentation of facts. 2.1 He submits that since, in respect of very same goods, case has been settled by Settlement Commission, in the present cases the confiscation of goods, fine and personal penalty will not survive. In view of the above, he submits that the impugned order be set aside. 3. Shri H.P. Shrimali, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Department reiterates findings of the Impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. We find that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appellant opted for settlement and approached the Settlement Commission for dispute arising out of show cause notice No. DRI/HQ - CI/50D/Int-2/2018/CI/8935 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
