2024 (6) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of goods entered for import under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The goods were examined in the presence of the proprietor of appellant's firm, Shri Naveen Arora, the G-Card Holder of their customs broker M/s. Bhalinder Singh Mann and two independent witnesses. It was found that the goods were the freezers, however, were declared as display cabinets in the Bill of Entry; though the quantity mentioned for display cabinets in Bill of Entry was same as three number of freezers found in the consignment. On being enquired, Shri Naveen Arora vide his statement dated 22.09.2014 had admitted the mis-declaration with the consequential liability. Though the partial differential customs duty amounting to Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al amount of customs duty. Once method of valuation and the reassessed value is accepted by the assessee, the same cannot be challenged. The final order of this Tribunal dated 20.10.2020 in Appeal No. C/51601/2019 titled as Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Vs. M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Sons has been relied upon. With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed on merits as well as for want of non-prosecution on the part of the appellant who is not present even on the date of final submissions. 5. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the records, we observe that apparently and admittedly vide the Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014, the appellant had declared about importing three display cabinets....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were mis-declared as display cabinets under CTH 94035090 which were meant for wooden furniture. It is also an apparent admission in the said letter itself that some furniture hardware accessories were also found in the said container during examination, which were not declared in the Bill of Entry. In the light of apparent admission on the part of the appellant, the payment of differential duty cannot be held to be a duty paid under protest, it cannot be held that there was no liability of the appellant. Otherwise also there is no retraction of the statement admitting mis-declaration and under valuation. Admissions are best evidence and need no further proof as per Section 52 of Indian Evidence Act. 7. The value mentioned in the Bill o....