TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AC O General 15,000 Old Kitchenware, Crockery Furniture, 30,000 Miscellaneous household goods Sony LCD 46" 20,000 On 18.07.2012 the goods were examined by Custom officer and found as under: A.Goods covered under TR Scheme (i) Used Personal Effects and Household goods valued Rs. 5 lakhs which were exempted under Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1998; (ii) TV Plasma 65', AC Panasonic, Panasonic Blue Ray Disc. Theatre (one piece each item) total valued Rs. 86,000/- which were eligible concessional rate of duty amounting to Rs. 13,287/-; (iii) LED 3 D 46'1 No. and AC Panasonic 2Nos. total valued Rs. 69,750/- which were not eligible concessional rate of duty amounting Rs. 25,145/- B Goods not covered under TR Scheme Crystals 18 Nos (2 pcs broken), LED Panels 15 Nos., Active digital subwoofers 2 Nos., Speakers Opera 405D 2 Nos., DJ Equipment's, Cameras Zenith 7 Nos., Conference Table 2 Nos -total value Rs. 5,97,000/- involving duty Rs. 2,15,219/-. 2.1. The goods were found mis declared, undervalued and in commercial quantity, therefore, the same were placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re in the possession and use of the applicant in abroad and it cannot be alleged that the goods are in commercial quantity of new items. 4.4 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that. when a beneficial legislation is made by the law makers, the respondent have no right to deny the rules of such benefit on technical grounds. 4.5 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that the carton no.188CRYS01 and 189CRYS02 are declared as only 2 crystal items, the word crystal items clearly means that there are a set of crystal pieces mit never convey a message that there is only one piece. That when applicant admitted the invoice value as basic value for said items, allegation of these goods as mis-declared goods are unsustainable. 4.6 That the appellate authority and adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that the golden bird mentioned in panchnama, was a showpiece item brought from a flower shop and the time of packing it was kept in the box supplied by the flower shop. That both the items are falling under the category of goods under TR where no duty is payable as admitted by respondents. 4.7 That a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the import is not for profit motive, penalty cannot be imposed. {1998 (102) ELT 746 Tribunal}. Thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Personal hearing in this case held on 03.09.2015 and 18.09.2015 was attended by Mr. P.A. Augustian, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application and stressed that the valuation of the goods is on the higher side and the value as declared be accepted and duty may be assessed accordingly. Shri R. Singh, Appraiser, ICD attended the personal hearing on behalf of the department who handed over a written submission which is as under: 5.1 That the applicant did not declare the exact description and quantity of the goods. That vide his letter dated 30.07.2012 he admitted that he had mistakenly declared a show piece-golden bird as flower since it was packed in a box of flower shop. That he also did not declare the actual number of crystals on the plea that the word crystal item clearly means a set of crystal pieces. That his version of keeping a show piece in the box of a flower shop and then declaring it as flowers and presumption of set of crystals by declaring it crystal item is not convin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1998; confiscation of the dutiable goods valued at Rs. 7,52,750/- which includes goods eligible under TR as well as not covered under TR Rules under Section Ill(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000 /- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; clearance of goods eligible under TR Rules on payment of appropriate duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, ibid and clearance of non TR goods on payment of full rate of duty and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri Sultan Bahardeen under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A) Cus/282/2013 dated 29.04.2013 reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 25,000/- and penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. Now the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government notes that the applicant in his grounds of appeal has contended that valuation of the goods was not based on the invoices provided by him. Government observes that the valuatio....