TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75 lakhs; Customs duty of Rs. 39,83,541/- along with interest was also confirmed against the importer appellant namely M/s. RVF, Noida. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) was imposed on the appellant Smt. Renu Sharma and penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs was imposed on Ravi Kiran Singh, authorized signatory (RKS in short). 2. The appellants have been represented by Shri A K Prasad, the learned advocate and Revenue has been represented by Shri Amresh Jain, the learned AR. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that: i. The appellants are a unit located in NOIDA Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) and are engaged in the manufacture of Fashion Designed Ready-made Garments. They imported two consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 75 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 crore was imposed on Smt. Renu Sharma, Proprietor of M/s RVF and a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs was imposed on Shri Ravi Kiran Singh, Authorised signatory of M/s RVF. 4. Learned Advocate based on the memorandum of appeal and written submissions mainly submits as under: (i) The second test report confirms the appellants declaration that the imported goods were 'starch'. Hence the impugned order needs to be quashed. The second test report will prevail over the first report [HKT Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Visakhapatnam [2010 (259) ELT 735 (Tri-Bang)]. (ii) In para 24 of his order, the Commissioner has also relied on the letter dated 23.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... starch only. However, the facts on record clearly indicate that the goods had been handed over to M/s. R V Fashions and the same were in their control and ownership. On the request of Smt Renu Sharma, proprietor of R V Fashions, who is also one of the appellants and is proprietor of the importer firm, M/s. R V Fashions, had made a request for drawing the sample second time objecting to the procedure adopted for drawing the sample earlier. There was reasonable suspicion of the Revenue that when the goods were in the custody of the appellant M/s, R V Fashions, they tampered with the goods and the samples drawn were not of the goods, which were originally imported. Therefore, the remnant samples of all the four test reports were got retested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of 650 Kgs of green colour powder declared to be Starch Synthetic Powder imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2450 dt. 12.11.2010 as Rs. 1,08,565/-. However, subsequently on laboratory test the said goods were found to be Synthetic Diamond Powder falling under CTH 71051000 and the value of the Synthetic Diamond Powder had been determined by Jewellery Appraiser as USD 800-1000 per kg vide his report dated 24.01.2011. Accordingly, taking the average value of Synthetic Diamond Powder @USD 900 per kg (1 USD = Rs. 44.90) the assessable value of the 650 kgs of synthetic Diamond Powder comes to be Rs. 2,62,66,500/- and the Customs duty thereon comes to Rs. 39,31,570/-. Further, the said unit had declared value of 780 kgs of White Colour Power dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case. Applying the ratio of these judgments, I find that in the present case there is adequate circumstantial evidence of illicit import of goods by mis-declaring the goods so imported, with intent to evade customs duty and only upon a chance detection by the officers and the opportunity made available by the officer for want of a specific intelligence about mis-declaration did the noticee and seize the opportunity flowing to them reversed their earlier stance during adjudication proceedings. Hence the present case is covered under theabove said judgements. 25. It is well known legal proposition that circumstantial evidence providing reliable basis corroborating the statement made is a valued piece of evidence and cannot be brushed ....