2024 (10) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the clearance of 'Globe' brand and 'Lucky' brand padlocks. The value was declared at USD 6337.31 CIF. Another importer namely M/s. Gurudev Trading Co. also filed Bill of Entry No. 417496 dated 13.8.2002 for the same item. Both the imports were made from M/s. Shanghi Light Industries Equipment (Groups) Co. Ltd. China. The department suspecting under-invoicing obtained quotation from M/s. Shanghi Light Industries, China and M/s. Guangdong Agriculture Machinery Import & Export Corporation, China and found that there was a big difference in values between the quotation and the declared invoice value. Meanwhile, in a similar import done by one M/s. Evergreen Enterprises from the same supplier viz. M/s. Shanghi Light Industries, China, the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Appellants, cannot be a basis for enhancement of values declared by the Appellant, despite the fact that M/s. Evergreen Enterprises had accepted the enhanced value as proposed by the department. Further, the Original Adjudicating Authority, enhanced the declared values under Rule 8 of the CVR 1988, despite there being contemporaneous Imports at lower prices and confiscated the entire goods Imported under the above referred Bill of Entry and imposed a redemption fine for the release of goods and also imposed a penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who allowed their appeal by setting aside the order of the Lower Authority. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he misdeclaration of value, the subject goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and for rendering the goods liable for confiscation, the appellant was correctly liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. She hence prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and have heard the rival parties. We find that the imports in the impugned case was made from M/s. Shanghi Light Industries Equipment (Groups) Co. Ltd. China. 5. There are two stages in the cases of redetermination of value. The first stage involves the process of rejecting the declared value and the second stage involves determining the value by proceeding sequentially from Rule 4 to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircumstances, we do not think that it is necessary to look into the issue whether it was open to the lower appellate authority to admit additional evidence. Valuation done by the original authority on the basis of quotation was not on any legally sustainable basis. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set things right. The impugned order does not call for interference. The appeal stands dismissed." ( emphasis added ) [Also see: Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs Metro Trading Co. [2006 (206) E.L.T. 625 (Tri.-Chennai)]. It is a well-accepted norm of judicial discipline that a Bench of co-equal strength must follow the decision of another Bench of co-equal strength. 8. The transaction value based on a much later day import where the value ....