TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Clad Laminates" classifiable under CTH 76061200. Hence the goods were seized under section 110 of the Act on the reasonable belief that the same are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act. 3. Shri Jaskaran Singh, the partner of the appellant company in his statement dated 25.03.2021 accepted the revised classification of the goods and undertook to pay the differential customs duty due to change of classification of goods along with interest, fine and penalty. He also sought for the waiver of the show cause notice and also for an opportunity of hearing. On behalf of his firm, he regretted for such mistake and undertook that the firm will be more careful in future in classifying the goods properly. By order dated 26.03.2021, calculated the duty liability to Rs. 9,67,241/- was calculated and since the appellant had already paid the customs duty of Rs. 7,63,540/- towards duty liability on the basis of the declaration in the Bill of Entry, the differential duty of Rs. 2,03,701/- was held to be leviable. The goods were ordered to be confiscated being mis-declared under the provision of section 111(m) of the Act, an option was given to the appellant to redeem the same on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import,) ICD TKD, New Delhi vs. Sodagar Knitwear 2018 (362) ELT 819 (Tri.-Del.) which had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in CCE, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt Ltd. 2004 (164) ELT 136 (SC). 7. Learned authorised representative next submitted that the retraction based on record by the appellant has no evidential value as the same is dated April 16, 2021, which is much after the order in original dated 26.03.2021 was passed. In support of his submission he relied on the decision in Hanuman Prasad vs. Collector of Customs, Jaipur 1998 (99) ELT 658 (Tribunal). Similarly on the point of payment of differential duty 'under protest', learned authorised representative has pointed out that in the challan dated 26.03.2021 there is no mention that the duty is being paid 'under protest' and it is only subsequently vide letter dated 16.04.2021 that the appellant has stated that the amount has not been voluntarily deposited but was 'under protest'. 8. Have heard both sides and perused the records. 9. During the course of arguments, learned authorised representative appearing for the department has referred to the statement of Shri Jaskaran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assification of goods along with interest, fine, penalty as decided by the Customs authorities." 10. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the appellant has voluntarily accepted and admitted that the goods have been mis-classified due to mistake and, therefore, paid the differential customs duty. The principle settled by judicial pronouncements is clear that once the party admits, the same need not be proved by the department. The decision in Commissioner of Customs, (Import) ICD TKD, New Delhi vs. Sodagar Knitwear 2018 (362) ELT 819 (TRI.-DEL) relied on by the Revenue, where the branded goods bearing the name 'Versace' were imported without declaring so and the Manager admitted that certain goods were not as per the declaration made in the Bill of Entry and agreed with the manner of calculating the assessable value and differential duty on the basis of market inquiry conducted by the customs officers, it was observed as under: 9. It is settled position of law that the facts which are admitted need not be proved. In the case of CCE, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. -2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC), the Hon‟ble Apex Court in para 5 of the order has observed as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the consented value, in effect, becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation; (ii) When an importer accepts the loaded value of the goods without any protest or objection, the importer cannot be permitted to deny its correctness; and (iii) The burden of the Department to establish the declared value to be in correct is discharged if the enhanced value is voluntarily accepted. 31. What, therefore, follows is that once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value it was not necessary for the revenue to determine the valuation as the consented value, in effect, became the declared transaction value. Further, once the appellant accepted the enhanced value it would not be open to the appellant to now contend that the procedure as contemplated under rule 12 of the Valuation Rules should have been complied with." 13. On the issue of retraction, I am of the considered view that the statement was made on 25.03.2021 and the retraction was made vide communication dated 16.04.2021, which is nothing but afterthought and belated action and hence no reliance can be placed thereon. The decision referred by the learned authorised representative appearing for....