TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Rule 7 ibid. 2) I confirm the differential Customs duty amounting to Rs.5,82,369/- in addition to duty amounting to Rs. 3,76,612/- already paid on goods as per Bill of Entry No. 6955830 dated 26.06.2018 on the re-determined assessable value of Rs. 33,79,815/- covered under said Bill of Entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act 1962. 3) I order to confiscate goods valued at Rs. 33,79,815/- covered under Bill of Entry No. 6955830 dated 26.06.2018 under the provisions of Section 111(m) read with Section 118 of the Customs Act' 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) under Section 125 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 4) I impose penalty of Rs. 45,000/- (Forty Five Thousand only) upon Shri Nischay Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Radha Enterprises, under the provisions of Section 112(a) of Customs Act 1962, 5) I impose penalty of Rs.3,00,000/(Three Lakhs) upon Shri Nischay Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Radha Enterprises, under Section 114 AA the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 The Appellant holding IEC No.0517535386 filed Bill of Entry No.6955830 dated 26.06.2018 for import o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 172750 242064 16.55 40062 13 61159990 Baby Socks (23.3 gm P. Pair) 41460 57318 16.55 9486 14 61159990 Baby Socks (27.3 gm P. Pair) 45606 67158 16.55 11115 15 61159990 Baby Socks (35 gm P. Pair) 60117 86100 16.55 14250 16 61159990 Women Socks (8 gm P.Pair) 48370 65600 16.55 10857 Total 1949415 3379815 958981 * BCD+SWS+IGST 2.3 On the basis of the above it was alleged that the Appellant has mis-declared the classification of the Bed Spread and the value of all the goods in the self assessed Bill of Entry No. 6955830 dated 26.06.2018, Imported goods were seized as per Seizure Memo dated 21.08.2018. 2.4 Statement of Shri Nischay Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Radha Enterprises was recorded wherein he stated that:- a) He had placed order of the goods imported on oral basis to the foreign supplier. b) He could not confirm the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7103/2 Gali Pahar Wali, AHATA Kidara, Delhi-110006, under Section 114 AA the Customs Act, 1962." 2.6 The Show Cause Notice have been adjudicated as per the Order-In-Original referred in Para 1.2 above. 2.7 Aggrieved Appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order. 2.8 Hence the present appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Ashish Bhatt, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Revenue and have perused the appeal records. 3.2 Arguing for the Appellant learned Counsel submits as follows:- a) The Appellant classified the goods as per the order placed on them and as per import invoices received from the foreign supplier. They had no role in the alleged misclassification of the goods. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision in following cases:- i. Kirti Sales Corpn. [2008 (232) ELT 151] ii. Vaibhav Textiles [2007 (214) ELT 408] b) Reliance placed on the DGVO Circular cannot be a ground for unnecessary value as have been held in the following decisions:- i. South India Television (P) Ltd. [2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the officers of SIIB vide seizure memo dated 21.08.2018. 5.2 I further find that Shri Nischay Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Radha Enterprises admitted in his statement that he had placed order of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 6955830 dated 26.06.2018 on oral basis to foreign supplier. He could not confirm the specifications, description, quantity and value of goods and had not kept any record regarding this. Shri Gupta further confirmed that market enquiry was done in his presence and he was in total agreement with the values tabulated in the valuation chart (RUD-5) of Show Cause Notice. He also confirmed that market enquiries were necessitated in the absence of any data available for identical/ similar goods. He further accepted the revised assessable values derived on that basis of market enquiry and alert on socks given by the Directorate General of Valuation. Further, he perused and agreed with the examination report dated 29.06.2018. He also agreed that the Bed spread, being quilted, should have been classified in CTH 94049019. He had stated that it got mis-classified due to erroneous impression on his part about its classification. He. however, was in comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merits in the submissions of the appellant that he had placed an oral order on the foreign supplier and what so ever mis-declaration has happened has happened at the suppliers end. 4.4 We also note that the Appellant have accepted the case of mis-declaration and undervaluation categorically in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, on 07.08.2018. Relevant excerpts are reproduced below: Question 3: Please elaborate the work handled by you in M/s Radha Enterprises. Answer: I look after all the work of my firm. Question 4: How did you place your order for present consignment imported vide Bill of Entry No. 6955830 dated 26.06.2018: Answer: I had placed order on oral basis to my foreign supplier. I, however, cannot recount and confirm the quantity and value of goods ordered by me to my supplier. Question 5: Could you confirm the specifications, description, quantity and value of goods ordered by you to your foreign supplier? Answer : No, I cannot confirm the above details since I do not remember them now, nor have I kept any record for the same anywhere which I could produce before you later. We basically im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of market enquiries and on the basis of values given for the socks in the alerts given by Directorate General of Valuations. Please give your detailed explanation on the same. Answer: I have carefully perused the duty chart shown to me prepared on the basis of market enquiries and on the basis of directorate of valuation alerts and I accept them in toto without any hesitation. I submit that I am prepared to pay differential duty worked out in the duty chart, which I have signed in today's date in acceptance of my duty liability and am willing to pay any penalty and fine that may be levied on my present import consignment. 4.5 We find that the appellant has in his statement admitted that the Bed Spreads in the Bill of Entry were mis-classified. He also admitted that bed spreads and other goods imported under the said bill of entry were undervalued. He agreed with the value determined. In view of the specific admission made by the appellant in respect of mis-classification and undervaluation we do not find any merits in the reliance placed by the appellant on various decisions in this respect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Systems & Components P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use, there is no need for the department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law what is admitted need not be proved". 10. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Jai Shiv Trading Company vide F. O., dated 20-7-2017 has observed as follows : "The appellant has also challenged that valuation adopted by the customs authorities. From record, it is seen that such redetermination of value has been carried out in terms of Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules which provides for determination of value on the basis of the price of identical or similar imported goods in India. It is further seen from records, that the proprietor of the appellant, Sh. Jayshiv, was shown the market enquiry report at the time of recording his statement on 8-7-2008. Further, in the statement he has voluntarily accepted the increased valuation of the imported goods. It is settled position of law that once, the importer has admitted the redetermination of value on record and has accepted the method of such valuation, he can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant himself, nothing further is required to be proved to the contrary. The Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chabbra v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 = [1996] 1996 taxmann.com 71 (SC)] held that confession made by the appellant binds him. We also place reliance on another decision in Commissioner of C. Ex. v. Systems and Components Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.) = [2004] 2004 taxmann.com 1156 (SC)] where it has been held that it is a basic and settled law that what has been admitted need not be proved. In view of the above, we are convinced that there is sufficient corroborative evidence to demand the duty on gold said to have been brought by the appellants during the previous visits. Consequently, the demand is confirmed for the extended period." 4.8 As we find the goods have been mis-declared, mis-classified & undervalued the goods have been rightly held to be confiscable under Section 111(m) read with Section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, we find that the redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs imposed upon the Appellant is on the very higher side and we reduce the same to Rs.2.5 lakhs. 4.9 Apparently, we find that the Appellants have filed the Bill ....