TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mobile phone and laptop of Reach brand from China. It is also an admitted position that the importer had paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) on the RSP/MRP, less abatement, as declared by them in the Bills of Entry filed before the Customs Authorities at the time of importation. However, at a later stage, after clearance from Customs, the MRP stickers of such goods were replaced with the stickers having higher MRP and the said goods were sold to ultimate customers at a higher MRP. On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner including the other directors of the importer were called up to show-cause as to why: (i) The goods having total assessable value of Rs. 3,44,550/- imported under Bills of Entry as detailed in "Annexure-III" to this notice and seized vide seizure memo dated 24.05.2019, should not confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) The revised/changed RSP, as mentioned in "Annexure-III" to this Notice, should not be taken as the correct RSP for assessment of Additional Duties of Customs payable thereon in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d vide Seizure Memo dated 24th March, 2019, to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the said Act. Proceeding on such premise, the adjudicating authority was, inter alia, pleased to observe and direct as follows : 7. Challenging such direction, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority. The Commissioner of Customs (appeals), Kolkata by the order impugned dated 15th October, 2024 had dismissed the said appeal on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section 129E of the said Act. To morefully appreciate the aforesaid provision, Section 129E of the said Act is extracted herein below : "129E. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal. - The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal, - (i) under sub-section (1) of section 128, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officerof customs lower in rank than the 2 [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition. However, the petitioner may avail further statutory remedy as may be advised. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. 11. Since the respondents have not been called upon to file affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. ============= Document 1 65.1 The Impugned goods raving total Assessable value of Rs. 2,98,96,887/- kyported under 67 nos. of Bils of Entries as listed in AnnexurerL, II & III of the subject SCH, setzed vide Seizure Mamo dated 24.05.2019, shall be confiscated under Section 115(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; 65.2 The revised/changed Retail Sain Price (RSP) as mentioned in Column 13 of aforesaid Annexure-1, IL & III to the subject SCH shall be taken as the correct RSP for 218 assessment of adultional duties of Customs payable on tive med setaed goods in forum in Section 3 of the Customns Tariff Act, 1975 real with Santion AA of the Contrel 1944 and the Central Excise (Determination of Rutas Sala Preis of Recisatris goode) Rules, 2008; 65.3 Differential duty totally amounting to fts.14,24,703/. as diegall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Customs Act, 1962 and It can be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioners with the contravention of Customs Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another matter of CULAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH CHOUGULE VB. S. REYNOLDS, SUPDT. OF CUS., MARMGOA [reported in 2001(134) ELT 3 (SC)], has categorically held that "statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act Is admissible in evidence. The Court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitlated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act .... ", Apex Court in the case of Percy Rustomji Basta Versus the State of Maharashtra [1983 (013) ELT 1443 (S.C.), a case in which the appellant was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and 120-B of the IPC, considered the question whether Section 24 of the Evidence Act was a bar to the admissibility of a statement given by the accused of offences under the Customs Act. This Court repelled the contention based on Section 24 of the Evidence Act and the facts. It was again followed in Veera Ibrahim versus the State of Maharashtra 1983 (013) ELT 1590 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court in t....