TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the basis of intelligence received, four shipping bills nos. 2144746, 2144743, 2144732 and 2144797, all dated 15.06.2022 were put on hold and examination was conducted in the presence of Shri Lokesh, Authorised Representative of the appellant and two independent witnesses. The samples of all types of goods covered under the shipping bills were drawn for further investigation as the goods appeared to be mis-declared in terms of quantity (shortage of 324 pieces) and overvalued as they appeared to be of inferior quality. The goods were, therefore detained under Section 110 of the Act. As the declared value of the goods did not represent the true transaction value, the value was determined by proceeding sequentially under Rule 4 to 6 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tives, were rejected and penalty was imposed under Section 114(iii) and 114 AA of the Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard Ms.Vidushi Subham, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was to the manner of conducting the market enquiry on the basis of the wholesale market of Delhi, whereas they have purchased the impugned goods from Ludhiana and according to her, the products available in Ludhiana are of higher quality as compared to the products available in Gandhinagar market at Delhi. Moreover, only verbal enqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agree with the results of market enquiry conducted in presence of you from independent wholesalers? Ans.:- I admit that the market enquiry was conducted in presence of me on 28.06.2022 and I agree with the value found during market Enquiry. Thus, when the exporter himself has participated in the market enquiry, along with independent sellers and has agreed to the value arrived in his presence, nothing survives to challenge further. 9. The reliance placed by the learned Authorised Representative on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, (Import), ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. Sodagar Knitwear [2018(362) ELT 819 (Tri.-Delhi)] on the principle that the admitted facts need not be proved, rejected the challenge to the calculatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is settled position of law that once, the importer has admitted the redetermination of value on record and has accepted the method of such valuation, he cannot subsequently challenge the same on the same ground. Consequently, we uphold the redetermination of the value carried out by the customs authorities". The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the instant case. 10. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sodagar Knitwear (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 2018 (362) ELT A-213. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision in Jayesh Bhavsar Vs. Commissioner Customs, (Export), Mumbai [2017(358) ELT 778 (Tri-Mumbai)], in support of her contention that the manner o....