TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DRI), Kolkata developed an intelligence to the effect that some importers were importing "Patchouli Oil" by grossly undervaluing it. On the basis of this intelligence, the DRI conducted searches at the premises of M/s. Blue Moon Fragrances, 20, Marquis Street, Kolkata - 700 016 (appellant). During the course of the investigation, it was found that during the period from 2004-05 to 2005-06, the appellant had imported two consignments of Patchouli Oil declaring the same as "Patchouli Oil SL-8/PS-24 (Natural essential Oil)" of Indonesian origin, from M/s. Eteris Enterprises, Singapore and M/s. P.T. KarimunKencana Aromatics, Medan-20151, Indonesia respectively, the details of which are given below: - SI. No. Year of Import Bill of Entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date Description of goods Country of origin Declared unit price(CIF) US$ 1 607153 dt. 25.03.2004 (Chennai) Patchouli Essential Decolfree Indonesia 27.00 2 446224 dt. 23.03.2004 Patchouli oil (Natural Essential oil) Indonesia 28.5 3 472076 dt. 23.06.04(Mumbai) Patchouli oil Indonesia 28.5 4 520456 dt. 09.12.04 (Mumbai) Patchouli oil Indonesia 27.00 II. Import from M/s. P. T. KarimunKencana Aromatics, SI. No. Bill of Entry No. and date Description of goods Country of origin Declared unit price(CIF) US$ 1 540478 dt. 09.02.05 (Mumbai) Patchouli oil Indonesia 28.00 2 547547 dt. 07.03.05 (Mumbai) Patchouli oil standard Indonesia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001 vide the Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/36/2018 dated 13.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") wherein he has confirmed the differential duty of Rs.8,76,699/-, along with applicable interest thereon. The impugned goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, but were not confiscated being unavailable for confiscation. A penalty of Rs.8,76,999/- was imposed on Md. Ismail, Proprietor of M/s. Blue Moon Fragrances, Kolkata, under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the above demands in the impugned order, the appellant-company and its Proprietor have filed separate appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants. Scrutiny of the documents recovered from the said premises revealed that the insured value of the goods was higher than the invoice value declared by the appellant for the purpose of clearance of the goods. The assessable value declared by the appellant in the said two Bills of Entry were rejected on the ground that the insured value of the product was higher than the value declared in the invoice. Subsequently, differential duty was demanded from the appellant based on the price available on contemporaneous import of similar goods. 10.1 We observe that the value declared by the appellant for insurance purpose has no relevance for the purpose of assessment of customs duty. There is no evidence on record produced by the inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd., a sister concern of the appellant-company, from the same manufacturer in Singapore, under Bill-of-Entry No. 276058 dated 20.03.2006. Proceedings were initiated by DRI and a Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2006 was issued to them on the ground of under valuation of the goods imported. The proceedings were later dropped by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/ADC/65/09 dated 05.03.2009, after going through the copy of "International Business Information Service". The documents submitted in that case proves that different grades of Patchouli Oil such as Patchouli Oil pure, Patchouli Oil good, Patchouli Oil Pure SPX, Patchouli Oil STD and Patchouli Oil Iron Free have different prices in the international mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand of differential duty along with interest confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same. Since, the demand of duty is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty on the appellant importer does not arise. 11. With regard to imposition of personal penalty on Shri Subhas K Naik, the appellant submits that imposition of huge penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- is not warranted in the matter in as much as there is neither any contumacious conduct or deliberate violation of statute in order to enable the department to invoke penal provisions. We observe that there is no finding in the impugned order regarding the role played by the appellant in the alleged under valuation. It has been all....