TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... firm imported a consignment at ICD, Agra declared to be consisting of lighting fixtures from M/s Kewal International Corporation Ltd. Hongkong and filed a bill of entry no. 17 dated 6.6.2006 for its clearance. The goods were declared to be of Chinese Origin. In the bill of entry the detailed description of the goods was mentioned as complete ceiling lights with tube, outdoor lights, coconut tree, fire-work tree etc. The officers of Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence got the imported goods 100% examined and on examination, the goods were found to be as per the declaration in the bill of entry. It was also found that while in respect of the goods imported, in accordance with the provisions of Exim Policy, their retail sale price was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of assessment of duty be raised to Rs.9,03,537/- determined under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On this basis, he confirmed differential duty demand and also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 1962. Since the MRP had not been affixed on goods, the same were also confiscated under section 111(d). Since the goods had earlier been released against provisional duty bond, the adjudicating authority ordered the appellant firm to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. Besides this he also imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the importer firm and its partners as under :- M/s. Imperial Glass Emporium Rs. 1.65 Lakhs Shri Sumit Kumar Rs. 50,000/- Shri Anil Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis is less than the average price of the various raw materials like steel, plastic, glass, etc., the declared value cannot be rejected, as if, at all, such comparison has to be made, the comparison must be with the cost of raw materials and cost of production in the country of origin, that the declared transaction value can be rejected only if the declared value is much less than the price at which the contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity have been made, while there is no such evidence in this case, that in these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for rejecting declared value, that even if the declared value is rejected, the value has to be determined by sequentially applying Rule 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated under Section 111(d), that in view of the contraventions on the part of the importer, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation, penalty on the appellant firm and its partners has been correctly imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 8. We have considered the submissions from both the sides. 9. Ongoing through the records, we find that the declared description of the goods was ceiling light complete with tubes, gate lights, coconut trees etc. and the goods on examination were found to be as per declaration. As regards the allegation of mis-declaration of value, we find that the main basis for not accepting the declared value is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of value under Rule 7 has also been done in a very strange manner, as the department has not mentioned as to which the importer of identical or similar goods had been selling the goods in India at the wholesale price which had been adopted in this case for determination of assessable value under Rule 7. In view of these circumstances, we hold that there is absolutely no basis for rejecting the declared transaction value and making the allegation of under-valuation against the appellant. 10. Therefore, neither the duty demand on the basis of upward revision of assessable value nor the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) for alleged mis-declaration of value of the goods is sustainable. 11. As regards the confiscation of the g....