TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic goods for export. Both these units imported consignments declared to be containing Chinese Mobile Phones of Sigmatel brand in SKD condition consisting of mobile phone cabinet, top, back, with Mounted PCB and speaker, Leads, Battery, connector and charger. The consignment imported by Morgan Tectronics Ltd. was of 1200 pieces in SKD condition, valued at Rs. 27,05,384/- and for clearance of that consignment, bill of entry No. 2099/09, dated 22-4-2009 was filed. The consignment imported by other appellants, M/s. Pertech Exports was of 2300 pieces of mobile phones in SKD condition valued at Rs. 51,96,888/- and for clearance of that consignment, bill of entry No. 2019/09, dated 20-4-2009 was filed. 1.2 Both the consignments were examined....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nged on the ground that the matter is covered by the SEZ Act and not by the Customs Act, but the same was not accepted. Against these orders of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that even the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that charge of under-valuation fails and that the argument that there was no motive behind mis-declaring the description of the goods seems to be logical enough, that in view of this, there was absolutely no justification for confiscation, that in both the cases, the goods were imported by the units located in Noida Special Economic Zone and, therefore, as per the provisions of SEZ Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of the goods, which were in SKD conditions, certain activities are required to be done, which would amount to manufacture as per the definition of manufacture under the SEZ Act and the Rules made thereunder, that when the Commissioner himself has given a finding that it is not established beyond the reasonable doubt that misdeclaration was with intent to evade payment of any customs duty, and that even if there was intention to evade 4% Special additional customs duty, as alleged in the show cause notice, it would have been refunded to them fully on payment of VAT/ST on the sales of the goods, there was no justification for confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and imposition of penalty and that in view of the....