TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate Tribunal (in short, 'CESTAT/Tribunal'). 2. The appeal has been admitted on 24.03.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:- "i. Whether the respondent/Department can invoke the provisions of Section 111 and in particular Section 111(m) and the consequential provisions of Section 112(a) by confiscating imported goods merely on account of non-declaration of the value of a portion of the imported goods which otherwise are in conformity with the tariff entries specified in Schedule I of the Customs Act, 1962? ii. Whether the respondent/Department was justified in imposing a redemption fine and penalty as a condition precedent for redeeming the goods whose importation was permissible under the Import Trade ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007 (in short, 'Rules'). 6. An Order-in-Original came to be passed, wherein, the conclusions of the officer were as follows:- 'a. I reject the value of AUD 4,16,520 C&F declared in respect of Bill of Entry No. 806644 dated 31.07.2008 under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and redetermine the same at AUD 10,13,270 C&F (A.V. Rs. 4,27,09,243/-) as per the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) and Rule 10(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. b. I confiscate the impugned goods valued at Rs. 4,27,09,243/- (Rupees Four Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Three Onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit in the appeal. 9. Before us learned Senior Counsel would reiterate the submissions made before the authorities below. To be noted that even before us, there is no challenge to the differential valuation and the appellant unequivocally accepts the departmental valuation. Hence the position that the valuation in the Bill of Entry, being AUD 4,16,520/- and the proper valuation of the goods ought to have instead been AUD 10,13,720 C&F. This aspect of the matter has attained finality. 10. Notwithstanding the above, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the confiscation of the goods was incorrect seen in light of two notifications viz., (i) Notification No.21/2002-Customs Department dated 1.03.2002 and (ii) Notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portions of which we extract below, to illustrate this aspect:- '28. In the instant case, the importers had filed Bill of Entry No. 806644 dated 31.07.2008 seeking clearance of 4 sets of Dryer Parts, 1 Seat of Heater and 1 Set of Cooler Parts declaring a total value of AUD 4,16,520 CIF from M/s Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd. This value is figuring in the Invoice No. C1189/MSA/001 dated 20.05.2008 submitted along with the Bill of Entry. 29. However, subsequent investigations had revealed that the declared value of AUD 4,16,520 CIF was not the correct one and that the actual value was AUD 10,13,720 C&F. This has been accepted by Shri S.J.Lale, General Manager (Materials), M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd in his voluntary s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordance with provisions of Rule 10". Accordingly, the value of the impugned goods is to be redetermined at AUD 10,13,720 C&F under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) and Rule 10 (b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. By adopting the above said value, the Assessable value of the goods works out to Rs. 4,27,09,243/- as against the declared Assessable Value of Rs. 1,75,48,488/-. The duty amount payable would work out to Rs. 1,22,31,589/- as against the declared duty of Rs. 50,25,748/- resulting in evasion of duty to the tune of Rs. 72,05,841/-." 16. The records clearly indicate the series of errors committed by the assessee in arriving at the proper assessab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relating to confiscation, is also premised upon the aforesaid Notifications that we have held, do not apply to this case. Hence, for the above reasons, this argument is also rejected. 20. Section 111 deals with the confiscation of improperly imported goods and clause (m) thereof, provides for the confiscation of '[any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular] with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 [in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54]'. 21. Hence any goods where the value reflected in the Bill of Entry does not....