2018 (3) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Both these appeals since emanating from the same impugned order, they are taken up for common disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. True Impex, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as importer/True Impex) filed a manual Bill of Entry dated 03.08.2010 for the import of various household electric goods declaring th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also imposed on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Act ibid. On appeal, vide the impugned order No. 53/2010 dated 25.10.2010,the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- and penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. In respect of 486 Nos. of Electric Iron Boxes, appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e basis of commercial invoices, without any basis. He also submits that for the same reasons there is no justification for imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 4. On the other hand, on behalf of the department, Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, submitted that more than adequate grounds and reasoning have been given in the impugned order for rejecting the transaction value. In respect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed vide Bill of Entry dated 03.08.2010 has been rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has however, held that goods cannot be fully compared with identical imports and hence their value cannot be determined by following the Rules 4, 5, 7 or 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. In respect of the remaining goods, he has ....