TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Superintendent of M/s.Continental Container Freight Station, Tuticorin that there some undeclared fabric bales were found in addition to the declared cargo, the officers of Customs attached to the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch of Custom House, Tuticorin took up detailed inventory of the cargo in the presence of 2 independent witnesses. On 100% examination of total 787 bales, the discrepancy noted in the nature of cargo and the quantity are as follows : Sl. No. Declared Cargo as per Bill of Entry Cargo found on 100% examination Description Qty No. of Bales Description Qty No. of Bales 1 Polyester Knitted fabrics 13928 Kgs 557 Polyester Knitted fabrics 1720 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....polyurethane material (439 GSM) 4 S5. Undeclared Polyester woven fabric 54.2% with de-coarative Fabric (balance) (283.7 GSM) 54075290 3. On the basis of test report and the other details, it appeared that the goods were deliberately misdeclared with respect to description, quantity and value with an intention to undervalue the fabrics and to evade customs duties. The entire 787 bales were seized under mahazar dt. 09.01.2017. Statements were recorded. Show cause notice dated 07.07.2017 was issued and corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 04.01.2018 were issued to the appellant requiring them to show cause as to why the declared value should not be rejected and re-determined. It was pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s six lakh only) on M/s.Zariwala Enterprise (Proprietor, Mr.Maaz Kader Zariwala), Mumbai under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) on M/s.Zariwala Enterprise (Proprietor, Mr.Maaz Kader Zariwala), Mumbai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962;" Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared on behalf of the appellant. His arguments are summarized as under : 4.1 He submitted that the officers had wrongly concluded that the quantity of high value and duty sensitive VF (Viscose Fabric) was suppressed. Firstly, the fabric was found to be composed of "Polyester woven and Visco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stead of being sent to Moscow. The said contention of the appellant was not accepted by the department. 4.4 Ld. Counsel argued that the when goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, it shall be classified under the heading which occurs lost in numerical order as per Rule 3 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Import Tariff under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By reclassifying the fabrics, the department has indirectly denied ad valorem rate of duty and the benefit of Notification No.14/2006-Cus., dated 01.03.2006 as claimed in the Bill of Entry. 4.5 Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of M.B. Marketing Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2017 (357) ELT 636 (Tri.-Del.) to argue that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contemporaneous import. The goods were reclassified on the basis of lab test report. The value has been reassessed on the basis of the data intimated to the appellant by issuing the SCN. He submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Heard both sides. 7. At the outset, it has to be stated that the appellant has not filed any reply to the SCN and has not attended the personal hearing. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods are much different than the values given in the table in the SCN. So also, he disputes classification arrived at by the department on the basis of lab test reports. Taking into considera....