TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) in which he rejected the transaction values of the goods declared by the respondents, re-determined the values and confirmed the demand of duty with interest and imposed penalties. However, with respect to the seized goods, he confiscated those goods which were available and imposed redemption fine but did not impose redemption fine or confiscated those goods which were seized and handed over to the respondents for safe custody under supardaginama but which were found missing while in the custody of the respondents. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows: "(xxi) I hold 825 rolls measuring 42718 meters of Printed Flock Fabrics having actual assessable value of Rs. 57,54,553/- (EMV Rs.96,11,550/-) seized from the godown ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured by M/s Microfibre Inc., M/s Culp Inc. USA and M/s Microfibres Belgium by obtaining invoices for almost 1/3 of the value from traders of Singapore and Thailand. Investigations were conducted, the godowns of the respondents were searched under panchnamas and the statements of Shri H.K. Prabhakar and others were recorded. Investigations revealed that while the cost of the fabrics charged by the manufacture was US$ 3 to US$ 3.5 per meter and, the invoices issued by the traders was only US$ 1 per meter. In short, the investigation showed that the respondents negotiated the price of the goods directly with the manufacturers but obtained invoices for the goods from traders showing only about the third of the actual value. 3. After com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile in the custody of respondent. 6. The order of the Commissioner was reviewed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners and these two appeals have been filed. It is prayed that the impugned order may be modified and it may be held that the Commissioner should have confiscated the rolls of fabrics which were seized but which went missing from the custody of the respondents and redemption fine should have been imposed. 7. We have heard Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 8. Re-determination of the correct value of the goods, confirmation of demand of the differential duty and confiscation of the goods under section 111 in the impugned order are not disputed. What is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods [or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that where the proceedings are deemed to be concluded under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 28 or under clause (i) of sub-section (6) of that section in respect of the goods which are not prohibited or restricted, the provisions of this section shall not apply: Provided further that without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso....