TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oured powder totally valued at. Rs. 24,20,100/-. Samples were drawn from the seized powder under a mahazar and were sent to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai for testing and were reported as Beta Methazone Dipropionate Powder valued at Rs. 71,840/- per Kg. The value of the electronic items including watches adopted at the time of seizure was also revalued based on preliminary market- enquiry, price, make, model, etc.; internet downloads,. NIDB data, etc. As a result total of the seized goods worked out to Rs. 44,70,080/- (Rs. 43,26,400 + Rs. 1,43,680). As the impugned powder did not form admissible baggage goods and was prohibited item under Section 10C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and imported without proper licence, it was confiscated absolutely by the lower authority under the Customs Act, 1962. The assorted electronic goods and wrist watches being in trade quantity were also confiscated by the lower adjudicating authority under. Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fines of Rs. 21,63,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relating to valuation but no material was supplied to the appellant to defend the case at the time of adjudication proceedings. Thus it is clearly proved that the department suo motu had increased the value without any basis or documentary evidence and the adjudication authority failed to apply its mind while accepting the enhanced value of the department and appellate authority also failed to consider the same while passing the impugned order. 4.7 That the goods seized by the Customs Department i.e. 2GB Micro SD cards each valued by the Customs Department at the rate of Rs. 100 subsequently they enhanced the value to Rs. 200 while adjudication proceedings is pending whereas in earlier adjudication orders passed by the Additional Commissioners of Customs (Airport) at Chennai/Trichy for an earlier period the goods were valued at a lower rate. 4.8 That the plastic watches are very lesser rate and the same is available in the market for Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 but the department assessed the value on the higher side without any basis. 4.9 That it is dear evidence from their own record that they have not assessed the value property arid the value assessed at present i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-7-2011 be set aside and to re-assess the value and to permit re-export of the electronic and reduce personal penalty and redemption fine. 5. Personal hearing in this case held on 13-3-2015 was attended by Shri S. Palanikumar, authorized advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of Department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral & written submission and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of record, Government observes that on examination by the Customs Officers of the unclaimed baggage held as belonging to the applicant as verified from the baggage tags affixed on it, miscellaneous electronic goods as detailed in Order-in-Original dated 18-7-2011 initially valued at Rs. 24,20,200/- and subsequently valued at Rs. 43,26,400/- were recovered in trade quantity i.e. non bona fide baggage along with 2 kgs. of cream coloured powder. The sample of powder on testing confirmed it to be chemical substance known as Beta Methazone Dipropionote powder valued at Rs. 1,43,680/- The electronics go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in loose condition without any label or batch no., etc. Moreover, the applicant did not specify contents of his baggage or declare its nature, quantity and actual value to the Customs and did not possess or produce any document showing the licit procurement of the goods. This reveals that the applicant is guilty of smuggling the goods into India. The applicant abandoned the goods and left the Airport to escape action by the Department. The applicant claimed in his application that the impugned goods did not belong to him and that he was abandoning the same is not tenable in as much as that the applicant has claimed ownership of items other than the impugned goods found in the same baggage. Therefore, the order of the lower adjudicating authority which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) in absolutely confiscating the Beta Methazone Dipropionate powder under Section 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is just and valid. 10. Government further notes that with regard to the assorted electronic goods also, the applicant failed to make a true declaration as envisaged under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further being in com....