2019 (8) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& I Branch; it was found that there was mis-declaration, in the consignments consisting 229 bales, to the extent of 81 bales;81 bales were found to contain full pants and trousers in place of declared payjamas. Accordingly, the Department has seized the materials and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant proposing confiscation and imposition of penalties. Show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide Order-in- Original No.08/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2009 dated 06.03.2009, vide which, Commissioner confiscated the goods totally revaluated Rs. 38,09,430 and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 45,00,000; imposed penalty of Rs. 41,86,625/- on Shri Bikash Kumar Saha, Proprietor of the Appellant Company under Section 112(b)(ii) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 229 bales of Pajamas, Shorts and Head Gears. However, 81 bales consisted of full pants in place of Pajamas. The Learned Counsel has submitted a letter purported to have been sent by Fax from M/s Chandra Export, Kalampur, Bangladesh. The said letter dated 22.07.2008 mentions that due to electricity shut off, the goods were loaded under candle light and by mistake, some old and used garments have loaded. It does not mention that pants were loaded in place of pajamas. After perusing this letter, we find that the reason put forth by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, for importing full pants in place of indented pajamas, is not at all forthcoming from the said letter. The said letter does give any reason for the misdeclaration of 81 bal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the extent of value of 148 bales declared by the appellant. We find that the valuation declared by the appellant is to be accepted. However, it is required to redetermine the value of 81 bales in dispute, which were misdeclared. We find that the issue needs to go back to the adjudicating authority for proper appreciation of the Customs Valuation Rules and to redetermine the value accordingly. We find that the Learned Commissioner has imposed penalty on the appellant keeping in view the revised value of the entire goods, which are partly misdeclared. Such imposition of penalty has no basis of law. Therefore, we are inclined to reduce the penalty, imposable on the appellant, to be equivalent to the applicable duty payable on such redeterminat....