2026 (4) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order which are reproduced below: "2. Brief facts of the case : Detailed facts of the case are as per impugned order and are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, a summary is as below :- 2.1 The appellant had filed two Bills of Entry No. 3770006 dated 27.10.2017 and 3726027 dated 24.10.2017 for import of toothbrush of Lotus and Maxclean brand. The impugned Bills of Entry were marked for 25% examination by the officers of ICD, TKD, New Delhi and same were examined 25% by the officers of Import Shed, ICD, TKD, New Delhi on 01.11.2017. On examination of 25% impugned goods the officers of Import Shed observed following : (a) Maxclean brand toothbrushes were found in packets/ card of 12 pieces wherein RSP was printed as Rs. 1.5 each; (b) Lotus brand good quality toothbrush in plastic box with individual packing having only one piece in each box but no RSP was mentioned on it. (c) Lotus brand paper packing for only one piece brush. High quality Tooth Brush mentioned on it but RSP was not printed on it. Further, a tongue cleaner was also attached with this brush as extra feature/add on. 2.2 The officers of Import Shed,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... situated at 19/73, West Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi was searched on 15.11.2017. The goods imported under the Bills of Entry No. 3770006 dated 27.10.2017 and 3726027 dated 24.10.2017 and goods found at registered office & godown of the appellant and also found at shop cum office of M/s Hunda Ram were seized vide seizure order dated 06.12.2017. 2.5 Statements of Shri Deepak Khanduja, proprietor of the appellant were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In his statement dated 14.11.2017, he stated that toothbrushes of different quality, model and sale price were being imported at uniform purchase price of 0.36 USD; that purchase price of toothbrushes from China was determined on the basis of weight of toothbrush. Regarding name of M/s Divine International mentioned on toothbrush of „Max Clean' brand he stated that M/s Divine International was another importer of India who had placed an order for the purchase of subject goods but due to some unknown reason import could not be finalized and stock was lying unsold for last two years with the same manufacturer; that he got good deal from the manufacturer coupled with fact that said brand was not registe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se provisionally by the competent authority as per the provisions of section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.8 As the investigations were in progress, the appellant filed three more Bills of Entry No. 4346842 dated 11.12.2017, 4263174 dated 04.12.2017 and 4347081 dated 11.12.2017. Goods imported under impugned Bills of Entry were 100% examined by the officers of SIIB, ICD-Import, TKD, in the presence of representative of appellant, on 17.01.2018. In these containers also toothbrushes of Lexus, Lumax, Alphine, Max-clear, Lotus and Sonic Plus etc. brands were found. Declared assessable value of the goods was in the range of 0.36 USD per dozen to 0.96 USD per dozen. The goods were found packed individual packing for retail and RSP was required to be affixed on each individual packing as per the requirement of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, but no MRP was found affixed on individual toothbrush. The impugned goods were seized vide seizure order dated 23.01.2018. 2.9 Shri Deepak Khanduja, proprietor of appellant vide his letter dated 22.01.2018 provided brand wise MRP per piece and also per dozen RSP of impugned goods. The value of the impugned goods was re-determined unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted that he had no objection and he was agreeing with the computation of duty. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order rejected the declared value of impugned goods under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007 and redetermined the transaction value as Rs. 2,39,69,987/- in respect of goods covered under 19 Bills of Entry; Rs. 1,09,24,771/- in respect of goods covered under 5 Bills of Entry under Rule 3 of CVR, 2007; confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 36,51,301/- short levied on goods covered under 19 Bills of Entry, as per table no. 7 of the SCN; Re-assessed the total duty of Rs. 31,81,178/- under section 17 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of 5 Bills of Entry, as per table no. 8 of the SCN and ordered to recover differential duty of Rs. 12,45,905/-; dropped the demand of Rs. 1,88,463/- calculated on the cost of transshipment of goods within customs station in India; confirmed the demand of interest as proposed in the SCN; imposed redemption fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the appellant under section 125 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 1,61,02,438/-; imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 36,51,301/- on the appellant und....