TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered under invoice No.FEXMR15/03/00165 dated 31.03.2015 having value of USD 1287.2 (CIF) with unit price of USD 0.05 CIF per kg. The imported goods were in 56 compressed Bales and having net weight 25744 kgs. 4. The consignment was presented before Import Shed officers of Customs with documents viz Bill of Entry, Bill of lading, packing, list, invoice, GATT declaration and fumigation certificate obtained from the port of shipment for examination under 1st check, in the presence of representative of the CHA. The container No.MSKU8723233 was opened in presence of representative of the CHA and the entire goods were de-stuffed and stored in the import werehouse for the examination. As per examination order 20% of the bales were burst opened....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustries, vide letter dated 22.06.2015 submitted that they do not want personal hearing and show cause notice in the matter, and are ready to pay differential duty/fine/penalty as determined by the department. He also requested to adjudicate the case on merit and accepted the enhancement of value as per DRIs Alert/National Import Database (NIDB). 8. Joint Commissioner of Customs decided the case vide his order in original dated 01.07.2015 which read us under:- (i) The importer has mis-declared 6436 kgs of worn clothing as mutilated woollen rags valued at US$0.050 per kg (as per invoice) in order to evade Customs duty amounting to Rs. 86,692/- and hence the same appear to be liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,08,489/- (CIF) under section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give the importer an option to redeem the goods on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 2,52,000/- under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer M/s Bharat Industries. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to dismiss their appeal. Being further aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel urges that, Revenue has adopted proposed rates for valuation, as per letter of DRI dated 6.1.2009, which is by guess work and assumption. However, the appellant in order to minimise demurr....