2010 (12) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rential duty amounting to Rs. 79,45,316/-. In appeal No. C/653/09, the declared value of Rs. 8,53,107/- has been rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner and the value has been determined at Rs. 59,22,363/- and a differential duty of Rs. 17,40,140/- has been demanded. Apart from contesting the increase in value and consequent demand of differential duty, the imposition of various penalties has also been, contested in respect of all these three appeals. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, states that in respect of the second appeal, the appellants have paid Rs. 8,00,000/- against the differential duty demand of Rs. 17,40,140/-. The impugned order records payment of a slightly lower amount of Rs. 7,99,054/-. 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement has been made by about ten times. He gives an example that where the declared value was only US $ 2.7 per kg., the adjudicating Commissioner has adopted a value of US $ 27 per kg. going by the value insured by the appellants. The learned Advocate has, however, no explanation as to why the appellants could insure the consignment for a value which is ten times higher and how the insurance company has accepted a value of US $ 27 when the value declared for Customs duty purpose is only US $ 2.7. 7. In fact, in the subsequent argument, Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Advocate, states that the case involves a number of consignments and in respect of some of the consignments, the insured value is same as the declared value and the adjudica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he department, on the other hand, states that in the statements given in November 2007 and in April 2008, the appellants have clearly admitted the fact of declaring very low values and there is no reason why the statements given by them under Section 108 of the Customs Act should not be relied upon. The learned JCDR also states that in the absence of value of any contemporaneous similar imports, the adjudicating Commissioner was justified in determining the value under the residual provisions. 10. After considering the submission of both sides, we are of the considered view that prima facie the case of gross misdeclaration of the value by the appellants is evident on the face of records. There is no explanation forthcoming from the ....