TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of entries and enhanced the value, confirmed the differential duty demand and confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. Equivalent amount of penalty was imposed under section 114A and personal penalties was also imposed. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellants have imported the goods from M/s. Delbi Fibres S.R.L, Italy and declared the value as per the invoices produced by the appellants to the Customs authorities. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence carried out an investigation and enquiries were conducted by the High Commission of India, London with Italian Customs authorities on the basis of the information and documents produced by the Italian Customs authorities. It was revealed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the invoice was remitted to the supplier M/s Delbi Fibres. The evidence produced by the department alone cannot be taken as evidence for enhancing the value and rejecting the declared value. He points out that the show-cause notice proposed the value under rule 8 of the Customs valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 whereas the impugned order enhancing the value was confirmed under rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. For this reason also enhancement of value will not sustain. 3.1 As regards confiscation, he submits that the goods were not available for confiscation therefore the redemption fine was wrongly imposed in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shiv Krupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el) (d) Konia Trading Co. v CC 2006 (199) ELT 644 (Tri.Del) (e) Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Collector of Customs 199 (82) ELT 499 (Tri.) (f) Manohar Rajaram Chhabria and Orson Electronics v. Collector 1997 (93) ELT A133 (SC) (g) Mahalaxmi International Exports v. CC 2004 (169) ELT 68 (Tri. Del) (h) Dairy Den (India) Pvt. Ltd. v CC 2003 (153) ELT 663 (Tri. Mum) (j) Sigma Electronics v. CC 1999 (110) ELT 1001 (Tri) (k) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. 1996 (82) ELT 441 (SC) (l) Chandra Impex Pvt. Ltd.v. CC 2008 (224) ELT 583 (Tri. Del.) (m) CC v. D. Bhoormull 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (S.C.) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oice details and the higher value. As per the chart prepared and submitted by M/s Delbi Fibres, it is clearly shown that even the total payment of value shown in the invoices provided by Italian Customs were made in two parts. Therefore, it is further established that the actual value shown in the invoice and documents submitted by M/s Delbi Fibres to the Italian Customs authorities is authentic and valid documents which cannot be questioned. On going through the reports submitted by the High Commission, the supplier of goods M/s Delbi Fibres in their statement have stated as follows:- "(d) The supplier of the goods, M/s. Delbi Fibres SRL in their statement to Italian Customs authorities have stated as follows:- "I confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thentic and cannot be doubted. If it is so, it is established that the appellant had under-valued the goods. Accordingly, enhancement of the value and confirmation of differential duty demand and penalty related to such demand are correct and legal. Hence the same are upheld. As regard the redemption fine, we find that though the redemption fine was imposed but the goods were not available for confiscation. In the case of Shiv Krupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that in case the goods are not available and if the goods are not released provisionally, redemption fine cannot be imposed. Therefore, in the present case neither the goods were available nor the same were released on provisional basis therefore, redemption fine impos....