2019 (10) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sentation on behalf of the appellant, as none has chosen to appear despite notices and repeated adjournments. Learned Authorised Representative apprised us of the facts and the grounds on which the impugned order decided to deny the benefit of notification no. 64/2008-Cus dated 9th May 2008, ordered recovery of Rs. 6,62,843, along with interest, on unpaid portion of assessed duty liability at Rs. 7,43,009 on declared goods valued at Rs. 25,94,376, affirmed the duty of Rs. 9,33,282 on undeclared goods valued at of Rs. 32,58,755 that was assessed at the time of import besides confiscating both consignments with release subject to payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000 and imposing penalty of Rs. 14,95,430 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty of Rs. 9,33,282 without the benefit of notification no. 64/2008-Cus dated 9th May 2008 on assessable value of Rs. 32,58,755 (EUR48049). In the impugned proceedings, the benefit of notification on the declared 'spares' was also denied for demanding duty thereon. This denial, the independent assessment of the undeclared goods and the detriments are in challenge. 4. The appellant insists that the non-declaration of goods on which duty had been paid along with the capital goods cleared earlier occurred owing to their ignorance of the shipment in the impugned consignment. The reliefs claimed in the appeal are that the benefit of notification should be extended to the goods declared in the bill of entry by restricting the confirmation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar that even the 'spares' to be supplied with the equipment was optional. From the correspondence pertaining to procurement of 'spares', the adjudicating authority concluded that the selection of spares, being left to the appellant, was not included in the contracted value and that reference to 'free supply' is demonstrated only in the letters emanating from the appellant. The failure to notify 'short shipment' in the earlier consignments and failure to claim refund of duty paid on 'spares' that were not shipped appear to reinforce the conclusion of the adjudicating authority. No evidence to counter these inferences and conclusions in the impugned order are found in the grounds of appeal. Mere protestation of ignorance of the additional shi....