9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged overinvoicing of three lots of 'rough diamonds' from among the seven lots imported against bill of entry no. 2441859/15.03.2019; these seven lots were covered by two invoices - JS001/19 dated 12th March 2019, comprising two lots, and JS002/19 dated 12th March 2019 - with both lots in the former, of average per carat value of US$ 19 and US$ 27 ascertained by the designated 'trade panel' to be US$ 6 and US$ 15 respectively, and one in the latter, of average per carat value of US$ 11.60 ascertained similarly to be US$ 4 being of concern to customs authorities. Oddly, the proceedings before the original authority, culminating in adjudication order re-determining the assessable value of the three lots, of 12,288.95 carats, out of total weigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been prompted by confiscation of goods that could be re-exported only by redemption on payment of Rs. 10,00,000 along with penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and by reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Mahalaxmi Gems [2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC)]. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain is before us challenging the rejection of appeal by the first appellate authority. 3. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, they had not been put on notice of intent to convert 'conditional' confiscation into 'absolute' along with change of the cause for confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. It was also contended that circular no. 39/2019 dated 31st August 2019 of Central Boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the order appealed against. 6. There is no doubt that the Kimberley Process Certificate (KPC), submitted for the entire consignment, did refer only to one of the invoices; however it did match the total weight of the two lots. The limited remit of the said certificate is to suppress trade in 'conflict diamonds' and, indeed, notwithstanding its utility for that purpose, deprivation of title to such goods does not appear to be contemplated by law. We also find it ironic that goods which, most certainly, should end up ceasing existence, is, by the impugned order, regularised as property of the Central Government through an appellate process and, if the confiscation does sustain, condoned despite that imperfection. We are unable to fath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and with rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, is, doubtlessly, an approximation of its worth but is sanctified when determined in compliance of the statutory procedure; it is only upon the appropriateness of the method adopted or preceding procedure that re-determination may be challenged. The importer had foregone the opportunity to be placed on notice before substitution of the value and, hence cannot cry foul upon finding rendered. At best, only the computation becomes challengeable. There is nothing on record to indicate such challenge. The adoption of appraised value, while relevant for invoking rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
