2019 (3) TMI 1443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Dinesha The appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 2848342 dated 25.02.2011 for import of "Shell Bangles, Plastic Toys and Kitchen items" declaring a value of Rs. 8,45,517/- and the weight of the consignment was 18000 Kgs. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19.05.2011 was issued interalia proposing to reclassify shell bangles and toys under different CTHs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, under Section 125 ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, having rejected and thereby upheld the OIO, the assessee-appellant has filed the present appeal before this forum. 2. Heard Shri S. Krishnanand for the assessee-appellant and Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC, for the Revenue. 3. The contentions of the Ld. Advocate for the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....luation Rules sequentially through Rule 4 to Rule 9 when he rejects the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules ibid. * The value rejected under Rule 12 is the value declared by the importer under Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the effect of which is that the authority shall follow the Valuation Rules 4 to 9 sequentially and not at his will. * The redemption fine ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and upheld by the First Appellate Authority, are incoherent as far as the facts are concerned. At this juncture, it is very useful to refer to one of the pleas of the assessee that it had sought for re-export of the goods back to its supplier on account of mis-match and apparently the same is not at all discussed by the lower authorities. At the same time, we also do not find any justification gi....