TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valued at Rs 1,75,61,892/- are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (1) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. iii. The goods as mentioned at Sl. No 1 to 10 in table 9 have been provisionally released to importer against bond of value Rs 1,65,49,893/- and bank guarantee of Rs 13,30,000/-. Accordingly I confiscate the entire bond value towards the redemption fine of Rs 1,65,49,893/- that is imposed for release of the said goods. This amount should be recovered by way of encashment of the bank guarantee executed by the Noticee and thereafter by enforcement of bond executed by the noticee 1, and in case the same cannot be enforced the said amount should be recovered as penalty. iv. The goods as mentioned at Sl No 11 in table 9 above are available for confiscation and are confiscated, but allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs 11,42,993/- v. The Customs Duty of Rs 53,40,105/- collectively determined on goods other than branded is demanded and confirmed. The duty of Rs 6,11,424/- paid by the importer against the B/E No 9371947 is appropriated against the duty so demanded and confirmed. Accordingly duty of Rs 47,28,681/- is recoverable f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were actually found during examination were as follows: Sl No. Description of goods As per BE Goods found in actual Description mentioned on cartoons Sizes No. of cartoons Total quantity (weight/Pcs) 1 Limitation accessories used in artificial jewellery Glass Chatton attached with iron holder Taiwan Elmo SS16 21 835.8 kg. SS18 10 336.04 Kgs SS28 7 273.2 Kgs Iron Elmo SS16 14 423.93 Kgs SS22 6 183.1 Kgs SS28 15 384.9 Kgs SS38 16 355.64 Kgs Total Weight 89 2792.61 Kgs 2 Imitation Chain (Metal+Glass) Cup Chain Laser PP24-280 80 1821.1 Kgs PP24-198 29 310.4 Kgs PP31-230 12 310.4 Kgs PP3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 84 DOLCE GABBANA 41 TOM FORD 100 CHOPARD 40 VERSACC 103 HERMES 70 CARTIER 50 11 Ladies purses Ladies hand bags of diff. International brands Brand name mentioned on individual bags like Qty. in pcs VERSACC 78 LOUIS VUITTON 883 UN BRANDED 990 MICHALE KORS 632 GIANNI VERSACE 105 VALENTINO (GARAVANI) 90 LOUIS VUITTON SMALL HAND BAGS 144  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Unbranded 35x20 700 Googles of different brand one cartons Mark Jaccobs 51 51 Channel 2 2 DOLCE GABBANA 2 2 GUCCI 8 8 6. While the goods which were declared were ladies purse, ladies hand purse/ hand bags sunglasses, optical boxes, empty boxes (all unbranded) on examination the goods were found having different international brand name/logo affixed//embossed/ imprinted on them such as Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, Emporio Armani, Mont Blanc, Channel, Dolce Gabana, Ray Ban, Porsche design etc. The nature of the goods found was also different in some cases from what was declared in the Bill of Entry. 7. Shri Pankaj Gupta, proprietor of the appellant firm was summoned and he gave statements on 05.06.2015, 12.06.2015, 30.09.2015. In his first statement on 05.06.2015 he said of the goods mentioned in the Bill of Entry at serial no's 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were his own goods worth Rs. 24,00,000/- and the goods mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were also proposed to be imposed under section 112, 114A and 114AA of the Act. A personal hearing was also fixed but the appellant had not appeared. 10. The Commissioner passed the impugned order in which he held that insofar as the branded goods are concerned, the appellant had explicitly abandoned them and had also undertaken to not claim those goods in future. The reason for this is that the appellant had never placed an order for these goods and they were only sent by mistake by the Chinese supplier. He found that in respect of some goods the appellant had tried to mislead the investigation by wrongly claiming that they belonged to one Smt. Neetu Jain and later admitted that they belonged to him. The Commissioner held that by not making the correct declaration in the Bill of Entry, the appellant had violated section 46 and, therefore, the imported goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(l) & (m) of the Act. 11. As far as the counterfeit branded goods are concerned, the Commissioner confiscated them absolutely as the appellant had explicitly abandoned the goods. He rejected the value of remaining goods under rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and re-determined t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appearing for the department has made the following submissions: i) The impugned order is detailed and well-reasoned; ii) The entire Bond value was confiscated since all the goods (Counterfeit as well as Non-counterfeit) were liable for confiscation and appropriate redemption fine has been imposed as per law. The Redemption Fine was determined as per section 125 of the Act at Paragraph 35 to 37 of the impugned Order. These calculations in brief are as follows:- Total assessable Value= 1,75,61,892/-(as re-determined and accepted by the Appellant) Total Duty payable= 53,40,105/- Reasonable profit @ 10%, the market Value shall be = 1,75,61,892+53,40,105)x 110%= Rs. 2,51,92,197/- Maximum redemption Fine as per Proviso to Sec 125(1)= (Rs 2,51,92,197/- Rs 53,40.105) = 1,98,52,092/- RF for goods at sr. No 11 of table 9 = 11,42,993 ( Not disputed) iii) The appellant knowingly mis-declared the values by manipulating the import documents. As per the appellant's statement dated 05.06.2015, the payments were also manipulated and the balance amount would be adjusted with Pride international. iv) The appellant had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we find that the appellant had categorically abandoned the goods and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. Right holders were called and they affirmed that they were counterfeit goods. The Commissioner confiscated them under section 111(d) which provides for confiscation for goods which are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Act or any other letter for the time being in force. It is the case of the department that the goods were imported in violation of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the department is that they are counterfeit goods. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that certain procedures were not followed and the right holders had not joined the investigation. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted to take this stand at this stage because the appellant's consistent stand has been that these branded goods did not belong to him at all and he had not placed any order for such goods and that they are sent to him by mistake of the Chinese supplier. He als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utcher. The value of the imitation chains were similarly valued considering the weight of chattons, weight of metal and average price of the metal and chattons. It is recorded in the show cause notice that this method of valuation was accepted by the importer and its Customs Broker and importer had paid duty on the enhanced value. In respect of certain other items such as wind cheater, PU ball, baby car, PVC table cover, PU wheel cover and resin show piece, the declared values were accepted. 21. Thus, the total assessable value was proposed to be re-determined in the show cause notice. 22. The appellant had not contested the proposals in the show cause notice nor attended the personal hearing. 23. The Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. The first question to be decided by us is whether the Commissioner had a reasonable belief to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value as required under rule 12 to reject it. Evidently, when the goods which were imported were different from the declarations in terms of quality and quantity and description, the price declared in the invoice value cannot be taken as a price of the goods, which have actu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e valuation method usually followed by jewellery shops. If a gold ornament studded with stones is to be sold, the weight of the stone and its value and the weight of the gold and its value are indicated and the total value of the ornament is calculated. The method followed by the officers in the facts of this case is similar. The price of chattons was available but not that of chattons with iron frame etc. So, the value of chattons was taken and the value of metal added to determine the value. We find that this method of determination meets the standard laid down in rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. In view of the above, we find that there is no inconsistency in the method of proposed in the show cause notice and upheld in the impugned order. It also needs to be pointed out that the appellant had not contested the proposals in the show cause notice nor presented any contrary evidence regarding valuation before the Commissioner and, therefore, the Commissioner was correct in accepting the valuation method proposed in the show cause notice. 25. The total unbranded goods were valued at Rs. 1,65,49,893/- and a redemption fine of the same value was imposed by the Commissioner in the imp....