9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that that Appellant had made four more import of similar goods in the past. Accordingly, investigation commenced and statement was recorded from the Partners of the Appellant. Though the Appellant had requested for cross examination during personal hearing, it was denied on the ground that there is nothing wrong in denying such examination that will delay the proceedings. Thereafter Adjudication authority confirmed the alleged undervaluation and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order, partially modified the order by setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by said order, present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was imported by M/s Sarathi Impex. Ld. Counsel also draw our attention the reference regarding the import made by the Appellant in the said order where it is stated that "meanwhile a similar consignments of gas lighters was imported by M/s KV Joshy and CK Paul vide B/E No. 8950081 where in the invoice value of the refillable gas lighter was declared lighter MR 588 was declared USD 20/carton anti refillable plastic gas lighter with white LED torch with MR 5820 as USD 25/carton. As the value declared is low in comparison with similar consignment, consignment was taken for detailed investigation". The Ld Counsel for the Appellant further submits that after detailed discussion regarding the method of valuation adopted in the show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent while passing the impugned order is legally required to state the specific parameters adopted by them. Ld Counsel also draw our attention to Rule 5 of the CVR where it is specifically stated that transaction value of identical goods sold at the same commercial level and in the substantially the same quality has to be relied as identical goods. The Ld Counsel further submits that the issue regarding allegation of undervaluation was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., [2023 5 Centax 116 (S.C.)/2023 (384) E.L.T 642 (S.C.) and also in following cases :- (i) Global Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2011 (272) E.L.T. 724 (Tri. - Bang.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai Malaram Bishnoi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 7. As regarding penalty under Section 112(a) Customs Act, 1962. Learned AR submits that "person" includes individuals and entities involved in customs fraud. Partners are liable for firm's acts (Section 140, Customs Act). Penalties are valid. 8. Heard both sides. As regarding valuation, law is well settled that only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
