AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the importers-M/s. C.J. Shah & Co. and M/s. Jupiter Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. respectively and further ordered confiscation of the impugned goods with an option of redemption on payment of fine. The Commissioner had also imposed penalties on the main noticees i.e. the importers u/ss. 114A, 114AA ibid and also on the co-noticees (i.e. the appellants herein) u/s. 112(a) and 114AA ibid. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue. The case records, synopsis and case laws placed on record have been duly perused. It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel that the impugned order had been challenged by both the importers before this Tribunal in the matter of Jupiter Dye Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lment of place of origin with option to redeem on payment of fine under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 along with penalties under section 114AA Customs Act, 1962. The vessel, MT Braveworth, valued at Rs. 43,00,00,000, was also confiscated under section 115 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000 granted to M/s Braveworth Shipping Co Ltd along with penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 and Rs. 3,50,000 under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Likewise penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 was imposed on Shri Mohammed Zakir Hossain, master of the vessel, under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The vessel, MT Chem Trader, valued at Rs. 57,00,00,000, was also confiscated under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced the assessable value for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 7,17,858 towards additional freight in bills of entry no. 7007117/25.02.20, no. 6600759/23.01.20 and no. 6608417/24.01.20 filed by M/s CJ Shah & Co for clearance of 950 metric tons of 'mixed xylene' and 2083.35 metric tons of 'toluene' and Rs. 2,47,934 towards additional freight in bills of entry no. 6611107/24.01.20 and no. 6613383/24.01.20 filed by M/s Jupiter Dyechem Pvt Ltd for clearance of 2083.35 metric tons of 'toluene'. The goods imported by M/s CJ Shah, valued at Rs. 16,58,54,337.40, inclusive of freight of Rs. 33,78,952.26, were confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with offer of option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000 under section 125 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no evidence on record, elicited through official channels, of the facts relating to the movement of the vessels. The impugned orders have placed emphasis on the statements recorded from the master of the respective vessels but, in the absence of official confirmation from authorities at Oman/UAE about the port clearance submitted for entry at Sohar/Jebel Ali where, acknowledged Ly, the two vessels departed for arrival in Kandla/Mumbai, it cannot be concluded that such evidence can be relied upon to visit detriment upon importers who had no commercial engagement with the vessels or her masters. 9. In the light of such tenuous evidence of movement of the vessels, let alone the cargo contained therein during the alleged voyage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Goods) Rules, 2007 except on finding that the freight was payable by the importer to the carrier or that the freight had been absorbed by the seller. These are the only circumstances in which the payment terms of the invoice, insofar as the inclusions mandated by rule 10(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, may be suspected to be non-compliant for recourse to the addition prescribed therein. Furthermore, the mechanism for additions thereto provides that the ascertained actual cost or, in absence thereof, the enhancement by prescribed percentage be added. 11. The freight that has been ascertained does not even pretend to be representative of the actual payment made, either by exporter or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carrier. On the set of facts too, the enhancement order in the impugned orders merit setting aside. 13. We have deliberately not touched upon any of the decisions cited by both sides in support of their legal submissions. We have relied entirely upon the factual matrix of the case, in the records as well as submissions, and the law as set out in Customs Act, 1962 to render the finding here. We did so, with deliberate intent, for demonstrating that it is obligatory on the part of adjudicating authority to evaluate the proposals put forth in the show cause notice on the basis of available facts and law and that any detriment, of duty or fine/penalties, visited upon an importer without examination of the role of the noticee on the cir....