2017 (3) TMI 1015

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 25,12,267/-. The appellants accordingly paid the duty on 02.05.2013. However, on 06.05.2013 the goods were re-examined again. The Revenue entertained a view that two of the items (battery bank and car charger) were with brand name „ROMOS‟ which was not declared and the classification and valuation of imported items were to be re-determined. On completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated which resulted in original order dated 10.11.2014. The original authority re-determined the assessable value at Rs. 67,75,520/- with duty liability of Rs. 17,88,430/-. He confiscated the imported goods but allowed the same to be released with payment of redemption fine of Rs. 17,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it cannot be alleged that the said brand name, which has no previous publicity or knowledge in India, would have affected the value of the product. Ld. Counsel did not contest the confiscation or the valuation of battery bank. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We have examined the impugned order. It was recorded that the original order is cryptic and not addressing the issues in its entirety in as much as comprehensive finding in respect of the issues have not been recorded. Many judgments / decisions have been relied by the importer and none of them are discussed. Having recorded so, ld. Commissioner himself records a very cryptic finding as b....