TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting aside the penalty and redemption fine. 2. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Shri S.S. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Harsimran Kaur and Shri Viswajeet Saharan, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 29.03.2013 and it is as follows: "Acting on a specific intelligence that the goods, namely, Steel Bonded Cemented Carbide (Carbide 8%) imported vide MAWB 07121873622 dated 11.10.2012 by M/s Royal Businesses, 2680/81, 3rd Floor, Kale Khan Street, Kucha Challan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and sought to be cleared vide Bill of Entry No. 8201053 dated 12.10.2012, have been mis-declared and highly undervalued, the consignment was intercepted. 2. The representative sample of goods declared in the Bill of Entry as "Steel Bonded Cemented Carbide (Carbide content 8%) was forwarded to M/s Spectro Analytical Labs Limited, E-41, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi to analyse the tungsten content as the value of Steel Bonded Cemented Carbide is determined on the basis of tungsten content. M/s Spectro Analytical Labs Limited vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the current consignment. The Bill of Entry-wise details of imports showing quantity of goods, declared value, ascertained value @ 46.50 US$ per kg as admitted by Shri Mohd. Faizal, Proprietor of the firm and differential duty payable is enumerated in table attached as Annexure-A. As per this work-chart, the total assessable value of goods works out to be Rs. 1,39,05,861/- as against the declared assessable value of Rs. 36,12,210/-. Total duty payable on these 12 consignments comes to Rs. 9,86,516/- at the time of import of goods and the differential duty recoverable is Rs. 28,11,711/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh eleven thousand seven hundred eleven only) along with interest." (emphasis supplied) 3. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not deny that the tungsten level in the Steel Bounded Cemented Carbide was mentioned as 8% in the Bill of Entry. The Joint Commissioner, therefore, rejected the declared value and re-determined it and ordered for recovery of differential duty with penalty under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The Joint Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 114AA of the Customs Act and a redemption fine of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steel are having value 46.5US$ per Kg (CIF) and as such the product he imported vide bill of entry No. 8201053 dated 12110/2012 which was Steel Bonded Cemented Carbide having Tungsten content of 75.3% should be assessed at 46.5 US$ per Kg, which he unarguably accepted and undertook to pay the differential duty of Customs. 28.3 The Importer has not contested or retracted his stated facts under Section 108 of Act at any stage of investigation or otherwise. The Importer is therefore, required to discharge their duty liability by declaring the actual value of the goods. xxxxxxxxxx 33. (i) I reject the declared value of Bill of Entry No. 8201053 dated 12.10.2012 declared @ 12 USD per Kg and re-determine the same @ 46.5 USD per Kg to Rs 17,28,262/- (In words Rupees Seventeen Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two only). for the purpose of re-assessment under the Customs Act 1962. (ii) I order the rejection of total assessable value of Rs 31,66,207/- in respect of goods covered under 11 Bills of Entry under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 and re-determine the same to Rs.1,21,77,599/- (In words Rupees One Crore Tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn that for tungsten level at 75.3%, the value would be assessed at 46.5 US$ per kg, the appellant admitted the same and undertook to pay the differential duty. It is for this reason that an order was passed for payment of differential customs duty with penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 114AA of the Customs Act and a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs under section 125 of the Customs Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 05.05.2016, did not disturb the differential duty demanded from the appellant but reduced the penalty and redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs each. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the demand of differential duty and in any view of the matter the penalty and redemption fine, already reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), should be further reduced. The relevant portion of the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "26. However, I find that the appellant during his statement tendered under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitted that the goods covered under the Bill of Entr....