2017 (12) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcel contained "unbranded Micro SD Cards" of various storage capacities. Since there was mis-declaration, the Department seized the same on 20.01.2016. A show cause notice dated 20.07.2016 was issued, proposing to confiscate the goods on the ground of mis-declaration and under-valuation of the same. By the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Exports, rejected the value as declared by the appellant and re-determined the assessable value of 1,78,500 Nos. of Micro S.D. Cards at Rs. 2,10,71,523/- and also confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,00,000/-. Further, the impugned order has also imposed a penalty of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des and perused the case records. 5. In this case, the appellant had classified the imported goods i.e. "unbranded Micro SD Cards" under CTH 85235220, providing for 'Nil' rate of Basic Customs Duty. However, the ld. adjudicating authority had classified the subject goods under CTH 85235100, which attract 10% Basic Customs Duty. For arriving at the classification issue, the ld. adjudicating authority has referred to the CBEC Circular No. 12/2002 dated 01.05.2012. We note that the goods of Tariff Item No. 8523 are exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005, as amended. Further, the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.07.2016 has also clarified that the benefit of the said notification is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r as the issue of confiscation of impugned goods is concerned, we are of the view that the provisions of clause (m) of Section 111 ibid is attracted, inasmuch as, the value and declaration of the goods made in the post parcel do not correspond to the actual goods imported by the appellant. Thus, confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in the impugned order is sustainable under the law. However, considering the quantum of redemption fine imposed on the appellant, we are of the view that the same is in the higher side, inasmuch as, the appellant had not made any false declaration with regard to the actual content in the parcel, filed proper documents for assessment of the Bill of Entry, paid applicable duty. Therefore, in the ....