TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(l) and (m) and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] 2. The appellant filed Bill of Entry [B/E] No.4452338 dated 10.08.2019 for import of Baby Blanket (Polyester), Baby Frock (Polyester), Baby Jacket (Polyester), Baby Metal Bottle, Baby Booty (Knitted), Baby Socks, Baby Suit (Cotton Knitted), Baby Teether and Baby Winter Top (Knitted Polyester). Based on specific intelligence with regard to mis-declaration of value and quantity of goods, the consignment was put on hold on 14.08.2019 for examination by the Customs (Preventive) Delhi. On examination, the details of the goods found was as follows:- Sl. No. Item Declared Customs Tariff Heading Declared Qty. Declared (Doz.) Item Found Qty. found (in Doz)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The statement of Deepanshu Anand, Proprietor of the appellant Company was recorded on 21.08.2019 under Section 108 of the Act, wherein he admitted mis-declaration attributing as a mistake on the part of the supplier and being an importer he was fully responsible for the same. He agreed that the value of the goods needs to be reassessed and would pay the differential duty which may accrue along with fine and penalty. The appellant sought for the waiver of the show cause notice. Consequently, on adjudication, the declared assessable value of Rs.9,72,020 was rejected under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and on the basis of contemporary import data of similar goods, the value of the goods recovered was re-determined to Rs.29,38,629 and on that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty is the transaction value and not the deemed value of such or like goods. The learned Counsel has also challenged that there is no material on record to show that the quantity, design, composition, etc. of fabric imported by the appellant and the fabric referred to in the impugned order is similar. Learned Counsel also challenged the order of confiscation along with redemption fine and penalty of equivalent amount under Section 114A of the Act. 6. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Department reiterated the findings of the Authorities below and pointed out to the fact that the appellant voluntarily waived the SCN and PH. He accepted the re-valuation and paid the requisite duty and penalty amount. He referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice and agreed to pay the differential duty on the basis of reassessment in terms of the statutory provisions. Thus the appellant having accepted the mis-declaration and, thereby rejection of the declared value agreed to pay the re-determined value voluntarily. The law on the issue of reliance being placed on the voluntary statement made under Section 108 of the Act is well settled that it is a valid piece of evidence. We also find that the statement has not been retracted till date. In view of the admission of the appellant and following the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of C.EX., Madras versus M/s Systems and Components Private Ltd [2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC)] that what has been admitted need not be proved, nothin....