2020 (7) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 27.08.2012 under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption thereof in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short Act) by imposing fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In addition to above, penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The impugned order also ordered for payment of differential duty, fine and penalty to be deposited with the Revenue forthwith. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty as stated above, while Department is aggrieved by imposition of redemption fine and penalty to be at the lower side. In addition, both the Department and the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld.Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules (2007), straightaway. The Ld.Commissioner also ordered for confiscation of the imported goods along with imposition of penalty as discussed in the following Paragraphs : (i) The Ld.Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant importer, submits that the impugned order is completely contrary to the provisions of Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. It is his submission that the enhancement of the price of the imported goods, cannot be resorted to solely on the basis of Data contained in the NIDB, as it is only a compilation of Data of the import of goods at the various ports in India. This may be indicative of prevailing price of the imported consignment and it cannot be in the substitution for the provisions of the Cus....