2013 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d export of spices, betel-nuts and condiments for the past 15 years. For the purpose of conduct of the business, the respondent herein has been allotted Import and Export Code by the Office of the JDGFT, Kolkata in No. 0296007328. The respondent imported 53,592 Kgs. of split betel-nuts with declared C & F value of Rs. 8,42,198.28 and 36,480 Kgs of whole betel-nuts with declared C & F value of Rs. 5,73,282.20 from Bangladesh. The supplier of the goods was one M/s. Tara Export Corporation, Mongla, Bangladesh. The goods were invoiced and despatched under Bill of Lading dated 22-10-2010 and the same was arrived at Tuticorin Seaport in the last week of November 2010. Thereafter, the respondent filed Bill of Entry No. 2371179, dated 29-11-2010 fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the learned single Judge is wrong, illegal, without any basis and justification. Further, the learned Standing Counsel relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, in support of his proposition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the respondent is willing to pay duty as declared by them and also willing to pay 30% of the differential duty of admitted value declared by them and the value fixed by the Department, and in respect of the balance amount of 70% differential duty, they undertakes to execute personal bond. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials placed on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the goods can be rele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0% on the difference between the declared value and the value fixed by the authorities and for the remaining amount, the Court used to direct the assessee to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the officer. The learned counsel also relied on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court considering similar nature and also brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 2011, vide judgment dated 4-5-2011 [2011 (269) E.L.T. A146 (S.C.)], wherein, while considering similar issue, the following order is passed :- "Leave Granted. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Division Bench ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be independently considered by the competent authority." 7. A Division Bench of this Court also in W.A. Nos. 398 to 400 of 2012 by order dated 24-5-2012 followed the above Supreme Court judgment and directed the assessee to pay 30% of the differential duty and in respect of the balance amount, the assessee was directed to execute a bond and also further directed the assessee to pay duty on the valuation declared by the assessee. 8. By following the above Apex Court as well as this Court judgments cited supra, the respondent is directed (i)     to pay the duty as declared by them; (ii)   to pay 30% of differential duty of admitted value by the respondent and the value fixed by the Departmen....