TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fications. Also the description of the goods i.e Model Nos. declared in the Bills of Entry were different from the description found on the boxes of goods imported. The goods were not covered under BIS registration, which were mentioned in the document as well as on the stickers pasted on the corrugated boxes, which showed that the importer firm had mis-declared the goods and also suppressed the facts of supplier of goods, country of origin, BIS specification IPR . The imported goods were therefore placed under seizure. Statement of Proprietor, Shri Bimal Pravin Shah was recorded who in reference to allegation of under-valuation of imported goods, stated that the RSP was decided as per the market condition at the time of filing of bill of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-export the goods on the ground that the goods are not as per BIS approved test report. That the goods have been imported in violation of the Customs Act and also violated the provisions of Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order 2012 under the provision of Compulsory Registration Scheme of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 1986. The import was in violation of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and also violated the provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. That on account of such violation, the consignment is liable for absolute confiscation. However, the adjudicating authority did....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. vs CC, Pune 2017 (350) ELT 140 (Tri. Mum) * SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. CC, Cochin 2006 (201) ELT 102 (Tri. Bang.) * Shinna Marketing Pvt. Ltd. CC, Mumbai 2002 (139) ELT 347 (Tri Del.) 4. Shri L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner A.R. appearing for the Revenue supports the impugned order and submits that the goods were imported in violation of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and without registration of Model under BIS, therefore, the goods have been correctly confiscated absolutely. He also supports the impugned order on the ground that the goods were mis-declared in terms of value, model and place of supply. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06- 11008-2018 dt 14.5.2018 has permitted re-export of goods in similar set of controversy on substantial reduction of Redemption Fine without any penalty. Further, in case of Sunrise Enterprises Vs. CCE (Import) Mum 2011 (2074) ELT 200 (Tri), the CESTAT has allowed re-export of goods when the same did not conform to BIS Standards and were also imported in breach of relevant provisions of Exim Policy. We find that when the Appellant has requested for re-export of goods, the same can be granted subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that when the goods are permitted to be re-exported, the imposition of redemption fine is not justified. We find that the goods are not hazardous or for human consumption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- was imposed. The adjudicating authority also rejected the value of Rs. 97,29,816/- declared by M/s Ideal Impex on import of panels for 'SONY' television sets and re-determined the assessable value as Rs. 2,07,18,328/- under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination Of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 while ordering absolute confiscation of the panels and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- of M/s Ideal Impex under section 112 (a) (i) of Customs Act, 1962. A further penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Gurvinder Singh Kochhar, Manager and authorised signatory of M/s Raj Traders as well as power of attorney holder of M/s Ideal Impex. Findings: 6. The first issue to be considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mally imposed to counter any windfall gain. Accordingly, the confiscation of 'SAMSUNG' television sets for not being compliant with the compulsory registration scheme of Bureau of Indian Standards is upheld but we allow the redemption on payment of fine Rs. 5,00,000/-. 8... 9... 10... 11... 12... 13... 14... 15. We, therefore, set aside the confiscation of the 'SONY' television sets and 'SONY' panels and the enhancement of assessable value of both. The confiscation of 'SAMSUNG' television sets is upheld with the redemption fine, subject to re-export, being reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/-. From the above order of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case in respect of the s....