TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-importer had filed three Bills of Entry, bearing Nos. 5542435, 5542440 and 5543616, all dated 20.05.2014, through their Customs House Agent, M/s Cleford Shipping Ltd., seeking clearance of goods declared as Engineered Marble imported from China and classified under CTH 6802 9990. The declared unit prices for the said consignments were USD 46.56, USD 46.56 and USD 37.78 per square meter, respectively. As per the mandate of DGFT Notification No. 18 (RE-2008) dated 04.08.2011, imports of goods falling under CTH 6802 2190 are permitted freely only where the CIF value is not less than the prescribed minimum floor price of USD 60 per square meter. In the instant case, the declared values were ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C. Without prejudice, Ld. Counsel submitted that the marble slabs were for personal use, and under Rule 17 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, no confiscation could be ordered. D. Their appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed on the grounds that: i. There was no evidence that the goods were for personal use. ii. The relied-upon case law arose from writ jurisdiction and need not bind the Commissioner (Appeals). E. Counsel requested that the appeal be kept in abeyance pending disposal of Writ Appeal No. 1554/2015 before the Madras High Court. The writ appeal challenges DGFT Notification No. 65 (RE-2010)/ 2009-2014 dated 04.08.2011 imposing MIP of USD 60/sq. m. F. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iner detention and storage charges, and construction was delayed. Hence demurrage and profit margin should have been considered when imposing redemption fine; this was not done. O. Counsel submitted that MIP fixed by DGFT under the FTDR Act cannot be used for Customs valuation, being: i. Neither tariff value under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act ii. Nor best-judgment value under the 2007 Valuation Rules (citing Prabhat Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (366) ELT 5449). P. Counsel prayed that: i. Fine and penalty be set aside; and ii. Assessment be revised to transaction value with consequential relief. 6. The Ld. A.R. has stated that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has decided the issue ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve come forward with the present Writ Petitions challenging only the Notification No. 65, dated 4-8-2012 by which, it seems that the petitioners are aggrieved by imposition of floor price at US $60 per sq.mt. and they had no grievance in respect of earlier Notifications, which imposed US $ 50 per sq. mt. As discussed above, it is no doubt true that the DGFT has no power to amend the policy. However, it is to be noted that the Central Government made the amendments in the Schedule 1 (Imports) of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, by publishing in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II in terms of above referred to Section 3(2) of FTDR Act, in and by which, the Import under the Exim Codes 6802 10 00, 6802 21 10, 6802....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esorted to amend the import & export policy, which is not permissible under the provisions of FTDR Act, but in exercise of Section 5 of the FTDR Act, the Central Government is only empowered to formulate and announce the export and import policy. 21. Therefore, when the DGFT Notification dated 4-8-2011 allowed free import of marble blocks/tiles provided the CIF value is US $ 60 and above per sq. mt., the petitioners were expected to declare the same, however, contrary to the same, they have declared below the US $ 60 and thereby, the authority has rightly confiscated the same and therefore, confiscation of the goods is justified. 22. For the foregoing discussion, these Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ad valorem duty. In contrast, the value mentioned in the DGFT notification is meant to regulate the permissibility of importing the goods in question. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Proper Officer to first evaluate the declared transaction value strictly in terms of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules. If the transaction value was correctly declared and happened to be lower than the minimum value permitted for free import as per the DGFT notification, the officer, after accepting the declared value, could have imposed penalties and taken action for violation of the DGFT notification, as provided by law. However, in the present case, the Adjudicating Authority without taking recourse to the Customs Valuation Rules has by 'ORD....