2025 (3) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case are that the appellant filed Bills of Entry No. 4782056 and 4782113 dated 28.9.2011 for the clearance of Gillette Brand shaving foam and gel and Vaseline brand body lotion. The country of origin and port of loading was declared as Singapore. As per the declarations in the bills of entry, the goods had been supplied by M/s. HMN International Pte Ltd. Singapore. It appeared that two invoices raised by M/s. HMN International Pte Ltd. Singapore were the correct ones but the appellants had suppressed the same and the goods were grossly undervalued. The appellant has admitted of having suppressed the correct invoice. After due process the impugned goods were confiscated and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.7,00,000/-. A penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed to be redeemed subject goods to payment of a redemption fine of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs), under Sec 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with all applicable duties on the re-determined values. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the action of rejecting the declared value of the goods and re-determining its value, imposing a redemption fine and penalty only based on the statement of the appellant, which they had retracted and without disclosing whether any market value enquiry was conducted and if so no details of the same were not given to the appellant, is perse erroneous. He has referred to various judgments in this regard and prayed that the impugned order deserves t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: - M/S. J.K. Туre and Industries Ltd vs CC Chennai II 2024 (8) TMI 1220 CESTAT CHENNAI State of Orissa & Ors. Vs Md. Illiyas [AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 258 / 2005 AIR SCW 5925] Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra and Another ((2003) 7 SCC 330 West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Cesc Ltd. [(2002) 8 SCC 715/ (2002) 7 Scale 217]. He prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 4. We have gone through the related appeal papers and have heard the rival parties. We find that the dispute pertains only to the valuation of the goods since the Original Authority at para 29 of the OIO has held that the impugned goods cannot be treated as prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act 196....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h bill of entry as required by section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the instant case, the importer had furnished fraudulent undervalued invoices, which do not correspond with the actual value of the imported goods, to evade payment of duty. I therefore hold that the importer is liable for penal action under sec. 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 5. We find that this is a case where investigations revealed that there was a mis-declaration of the transaction value. The proprietor of M/s Royal Trades has in his statement admitted that the invoices shown to him were the actual invoices received by him and that he had filed fraudulent invoices along with the impugned Bills of Entry to avoid payment of duty. It is also seen that the MRP v....