TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-in-Original dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 3. The appellant filed Bills of Entry on 29.05.2020 and 23.05.2020 to clear imported goods declared as "old original completely pre-mutilated and fumigated hosiery synthetic & woollen rags" and on examination by the officers of Commissioner (Preventive), the imported goods were found to be non-mutilated, old and used woollen clothing such as shirts, trousers, skirts, jackets etc. Import of these goods is restricted as per the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able value and re-determining the value as per the "true invoices" produced by Ajay Garg during his second statement recorded on 09.07.2020. 6. He also ordered confiscation of the goods imported through the two Bills of Entry under section 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Act read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1995. He allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- for each Bill of Entry and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under section 112 (a) (i) in respect of each bill of entry the penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under section 114AA in respect of Bill of Entry dated 29.05.2020 and a penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submissions advanced by both sides. 12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no mis-declaration of description or value of the goods is contrary to the facts recorded in the impugned order, the OIO as well as the statements made by the Proprietor of the appellant firm. It is a matter of record that the goods were examined under Panchnama and the quantity was found to be more than what was declared. When questioned, Ajay Garg said that he had declared less quantity so as to save shipping charges. It is also a mater of record that instead of mutilated articles what were found was old and worn cloths whose import was prohibited. When asked about this import Ajay Garg clarified that he had learnt that ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ajay Garg himself has produced a set of new invoices in his second statement indicating that those were the true invoices and these invoices showed the value of 0.95 US dollars per kg against the initial declared value of 0.35 US dollars per kg. Such being the case, the proper officer had every reason to reject the original declared value of 0.35 US dollars per kg. When the appellant himself has produced "true invoices" showing the correct transaction value and also tendered his statement to this effect, the proper course for the officer is to re-assess the Bills of Entry as per the correct transaction value declared by the appellant. 15. If the officer had rejected the declared assessable value of 0.95 US dollars per kg submitted by the....