TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r seizure on the ground of undervaluation by comparing different warehousing bills of entry filed between 16.09.2017 to 16.11.2017. The appellant for the purpose of clearance of goods paid the duty as per the enhancement value and cleared the goods. The appellant also waived the show cause notice on the ground that they paid the duty however the adjudication order was passed ordering enhancement of the value, confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and imposition of penalty under Section 112 on the ground of mis-declaration of value. The appellant paid the differential duty, fine and penalty under protest and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order-in-original, therefore, present appeal is before this Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Hon'ble Tribunal has held in case of Shivkumar S. Dubey vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai reported as 2014 (308) ELT 170 (Tri. - Mumbai) that allegation of undervaluation is not sustainable when value is enhanced on the basis of NIDB data. 3. Shri A.R. Kanani, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing for the revenue, reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. We find that the Revenue has enhanced the value in respect of the goods warehoused in Kandla Special Economic Zone on the basis of NIDB data. It is admitted fact that the NIDB data is of 2017 whereas the DTA clearance in this case was taken place in 2018 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a CHA and it has been alleged against them that the appellant has indulged in the activity of arranging IEC of some other persons for unauthorized/illegal imports of toiletries, paraffin wax, tiles and fabrics by mis-declaring the value of the goods. Therefore, it was alleged that the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. Adjudication took place and a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant for violation of the provisions under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the provi....