TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/-. 2. Examination of the goods in container No. MSKU 8971306 was conducted by the Officers of SIIB Branch, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi under panchnama dated 27.11.2007. It was reported by the SIIB that the abovesaid container contained 39 bales containing 64,350 pcs. of mixed ready-made garments of different varieties/ qualities/ size valued at Rs. 32,17,500/- (CIF) taken @ Rs. 50 per piece on assumption basis. 3. Subsequently the goods of the appellant were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under panchnama dated 27.11.2007 and thereafter summons dated 02.05.2008 was received by appellant for appearance on 08.05.2008 before the customs authorities. In response, a letter dated 08.05.2008 was submitted, wherein it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t used and mutilated garments as indicated in the documents, but were are found to be assorted ready-made garments. 9. The Commissioner's finding recorded in paragraph 13.1 is that both the appellants were requested vide letters dated 17/07/2008 and 10th of September 2008 to collect the relied upon documents from SIIB, ICD, TKD, New Delhi. However since they failed to collect the documents, he has recorded that these were sent to M/s Chirag vide letter dated 24th of October 2008 and to M/s Pacific vide letter dated 1st of January 2009. However in the grounds of appeal both the appellants have claimed non-receipt of relied upon documents. They have also failed to submit any written reply to the show cause notice. They also did not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellants would also place the correct address on record and should be ready to cause appearance before the authorities as and when date for the same is fixed. The appeal is disposed of in the about terms". 6. Pursuant to remand, the appellant - M/s Pacific International and its Prop. Sh. Anil Gulati submitted written representation dated 15.03.2017 disputing classification and valuation of the goods relating to Bill of Entry No. 588883 dated 24.04.2007 and also requested for supply of RUDs, so as to enable them to file proper reply and also requested for refund of pre-deposit amount. Further request was made for examination of the goods in their presence. Thereafter, as per the impugned order, RUDs was provided to the appellant/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner in the impugned order has observed that as per Bill of Lading the quantity is 17,760 kgs. and hence the alleged shortage of 7,000 kgs. is erroneous. The quantity found at the time of re-examination 14,780 kgs. is not abnormal and within the tolerance limit attributable to deterioration in cloth wt. over a period of about ten years. 9. The Commissioner further recorded that the shipping line M/s Maersk India Pvt. Limited had made alteration in the bill of lading wherein the description of goods was changed, without such change brought to the notice of the customs, nor the shipping line filed amendment in the relevant IGM. Further, they did not give any satisfactory answer for such change. Accordingly, it appeared to the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in the case of S.S. Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata wherein vide Final order dated 27.03.2012, it has been held - once the goods are held to be old and used, their value cannot be enhanced by treating the goods as other than old and used goods. It is urged that there is no finding with regard to any mal-practice on the part of the appellant or the shipper/ supplier. It is further urged by the appellant that they have admittedly relinquished the goods as permissible under law, as early as on 08.05.2008, and hence the whole proceeding against them - confiscation and imposition of penalty is bad in the eyes of law. Further, the transaction value has not been rejected by recording reasons for the same, as required under....