TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), wherein he has raised the following grounds: (i) denial of cross-examination of witnesses, (ii) valuation of one seized Jacob & Co. watch by ignoring the value of the subject watch shown in the invoice sent by Ms Natela Lolaev, Chief Legal Officer of the manufacturer M/s Jacon & Co. vide her email sent on 11.11.2022 to the officers of Customs, by preferring to rely on alleged copy of uncorroborated invoice submitted by Sh. Pranav Shankar Sahoo, CEO of M/s Ethos Limited having masked discount and total amount, (iii) imposition of redemption fine in case of re-export relying upon Union of India v. Sankar Pandi - 2018 (360) E.L.T. A214 (S.C.), (iv) imposition of composite penalty u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act, and (v) the quantum of penalty. 3. The Appeal contained the prayers to:- "1. Set aside Order-in-Original No. 901HK/ADC/Yamal & Hiren/ICD-PPG/2024-25 dated 13.09.2024 so far it relates to the Appellant; 2. Allow appeal filed by the Appellant with consequential relief; 3. Pass such order(s) or direction(s) in favour of the Appellant as the Hon'ble Commissioner may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 4 grams (purity 750) and one iPhone 14 Pro (256 GB). The total appraised value of the recovered goods was assessed at Rs. 23,21,74,140/-, involving an applicable customs duty of Rs.8,93,87,044/-. The goods were initially detained and subsequently seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation. During the course of investigation, the Pax failed to produce any valid documents establishing ownership of the seized goods. In his initial statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he claimed that the watches belonged to his uncle, Mr. Hiren Vithaldas Dhakan, a Dubai-based jeweller, and that he was merely carrying them on his behalf. In support of ownership, certain invoices purportedly issued by M/s Noman Iqbal Watches Trading LLC, Dubai were submitted through WhatsApp. However, upon verification, these invoices were found to be fabricated and not genuine. Further, inquiry revealed that neither M/s Noman Iqbal Watches Trading LLC nor New Mashoom Jewellers was an authorized dealer of such high-end luxury watches. The investigation further focused on the high-value Jacob & Co. Billionaire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the Customs Act, 1962 on Mr. Hiren Dhakan for his alleged involvement in the smuggling activity. Both the Pax and the co-noticee approached the Settlement Commission; however, their applications were rejected vide order dated 24.03.2024 as non-maintainable under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, with liberty granted to approach again subject to fulfillment of legal requirements. During the Adjudication process in personal hearing (illegible) sought cross-examination of certain witnesses, which was denied. Subsequently, during cross-examination proceedings, he admitted that he had carried the goods into India, was aware of the applicability of customs duty, and had crossed the Green Channel without declaration. However, he attempted to retract his earlier statements implicating his uncle and claimed full ownership and responsibility for the goods. After considering the records, submissions, and evidences on file, the adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2024 and ordered as:- i. denied the free allowance to the pax; ii. confiscated of the seized goods valued at Rs. 23,21,74,140/- under Sections 111(d), (j),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application of the appellant. The above hearing before the Hon'ble CESTAT was attended by the learned AR on behalf of the department and raised the issue of maintainability of appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, as the matter pertains to baggage. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Bench directed the appellants' counsels to remove the defects in the application by 03.05.2026 and to share the same with the respondent Department. The matter has been listed for next hearing on 05.05.2026. In this matter, it is submitted that the instant matter is pertain to baggage as the impugned goods were recovered from the baggage of a passenger travelling from abroad. The definition of baggage and passenger baggage are as follows: * The term "baggage" is defined in Section, 2(3) of the Act to include unaccompanied baggage. "2 (3) "baggage" includes unaccompanied baggage but does not include motor vehicles"; * Section 2(22) of the Act defines the term goods to include baggage. (22) -goods includes- (a) vessels, aircrafis and vehicles; (b) stores; (c) baggage; (d) currency and negotiable instruments; and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect the article at the time of his leaving India, the article may be returned to him through any 'other passenger authorised by him . and leaving India or as cargo consigned in his name]. * 81. Regulations in respect of baggage. -The Board may make regulations, - (a) providing for the manner of declaring the contents of any baggage; (b) providing for the custody, examination, assessment to duty and clearance of baggage; (c) providing for the transit or transhipment of baggage from one customs station to another or to a place outside India. * Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 duty free allowance and Bonafide baggage along with the monetary limits prescribed. In the instant case, the impugned goods are accompanied by the pax which is squarely covered under definition of Baggage. He violated the provisions of section 77 of the Act by not declaring the goods on red channel having intention to clear goods without payment of applicable customs duty. Further the appellate forums against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in the Customs Act for the purpose of matters pertains to baggage are defined as per the following pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng made: Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to he presented within a further period of three months. (3) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf and shall be accompanied by a fee of- (a) two hundred rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by an officer of customs in the case to which the application relates is one lakh rupees or less; (b) one thousand rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by an officer of customs in the case to which the application relates is more than one lakh rupees: Provided that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an application referred to in sub-section (1A)] (4) The Central Government may, of its own motion, annul or modify any order referred to in sub-section (1). (5) No order enhancing any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. C/50352 & 50353 of 2026 SYNOPSIS BY DEPARTMENT "1. In this case, aggrieved by the OIO, both the appellant and department had filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who after considering submissions of both the appellant and the department has remanded back the matter to adjudicating authority. 1.1 Reason for Remand: The CC(Appeal) found that the AA had denied the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Pranav Saboo (CEO, Ethos) and Mr. Ovais Mohammad Iqbal Merchant (owner, Time In Style, Dubai) - whose statements formed the primary basis for the valuation. This denial was held to be a violation of principles of natural justice, necessitating fresh adjudication. 1.2 On Department's Cross-Appeal The CC(Appeal) disposed of the department's cross-appeal (seeking enhancement of penalty and fine) also by way of remand, observing at Paras 6.5 & 6.6 (@ Pgs. 48-49) that 'the points raised in the department's appeal can also be taken care of by the Adjudicating Authority while deciding the case afresh.' No substantive finding was given on the department's grounds. 1.3 Net Effect of the OIA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld have been filed under section 77 or that there was no such obligation. The impugned order, without doubt, pertains to goods imported as baggage." "19. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the impugned order before this Tribunal as per the proviso to section 129A(1) of the Act. " Similarly, appellant cannot escape the baggage bar by calling the watches "smuggled goods." They were found in his hand baggage upon arrival as a passenger at IGI Airport. The entire proceedings - SCN, OIO, and OIA - treat and adjudicate them as goods found in the baggage of a passenger. The characterization on merits is irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. (ii) The M. Ambalal Citation: Appellant cites M. Ambalal (2011) 2 SCC 74 (CC (Preventive), Mumbai Versus M/s M. Ambalal & Co. No.- 8235 OF 2003 Dated: - December 9, 2010) to argue that since goods are "smuggled" they are not "imported goods" and hence not covered as baggage. This completely misreads the ratio. The Supreme Court in M. Ambalal held that smuggled goods are not "imported goods" for the purpose of exemption notifications - i.e., the respondent there could not claim duty exemption because the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat rough diamonds were seized from the premises of M. Ambalal & Company and from its employees whereas in present appeal, watches were seized from passenger at International Airport when the said passenger crossed the green channel. In view of above, the judgment relied by the appellant is not applicable in present facts of appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ratio is actually against appellant: * Para 21: "'smuggled goods' will not come within the definition of 'imported goods' for the purpose of the exemption notification" * Para 22: "in the light of the objects of the Act and the basic skeletal framework that has been enumerated above, it is clear that one of the principal functions of the Act is to curb the ills of smuggling on the economy. In the light of these findings, it would be antithetic to consider that 'smuggled goods' could be read within the definition of 'imported goods' for the purpose of the Act." (iii) The Preamble of OIA offering CESTAT appeal: The fact that the impugned OIA contains a standard form mention of CESTAT cannot vest jurisdiction that the statute takes away. Jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause he wants the CC(Appeal) to decide on merits. However, from the department's standpoint, CESTAT has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal should not enter into whether the remand was right or wrong. The Commissioner (Appeal) exercised a lawful discretion to remand." 8. The Department also relied upon the following judgments which are part of a compilation filed by the learned Departmental Representative : - (i) 2026 (1) TMI 439 - CESTAT New Delhi - Shri Ravinder Kumar Versus Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, (ii) 2026 (3) TMI 214 - Madras High Court - Noorul Ayin Versus The commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), The Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, (iii) 2025 (4) TMI 463 - CESTAT Chennai - Noorul Ayin, Mohamed Ebrahim Amsath Hanifa, Yusaf Hussain Shahul Hameed, Abdul Salam, Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII Commissionerate, (iv) 2025 (6) TMI 1190 - CESTAT Mumbai - Mohamed Mansoor Versus Commissioner Of Customs, (Air Port) - Mumbai and Mahabubunissa Versus Commissioner Of Customs, (Air Port) - Mumbai, (v) 2024 (12) TMI 176 - CESTAT Hyderabad - Sri Abdul Raheem Kaulani Versus Commissioner of Customs,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or section 113;" 9.8. The relevant extract of Section 123 of the Act relied in Paragraph 33 of SCN reads as under- "123. Burden of proof in certain cases.-(1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be........" 9.9. In Paragraph 41, one of the proposal to show cause issued to the Appellant is why- "4) Penalty should not be imposed him under section 112 (a) alongwith 112(b) (ii), (iii) & (v) and 114AA of the Custom Act, 1962 for smuggling of seized goods;" 9.10. No "Indian Customs Declaration Form" in Form-1 under Regulation 3 of the Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 has been relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. 9.11. The subject Order-in-Original held as under- "Eligibility of the Noticee No.1 to claim free allowance 7.8 In this case, the Noticee No. l attempted to import trade goods through Baggage mode in commercial quantity, therefore, the same cannot be taken as his bona fide baggage in terms of Section 79 of Customs /\ct. 1962. None of the seized items is meant for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide the context and limited application of exclusion. 9.20. The Baggage Rules, 2016 were issued by the Central Government under Section 79 of the Act. It is not in dispute that these Rules have application only qua 'bona fide baggage', and not qua "smuggled goods", and hence baggage allowance is also denied. 9.21. It is apt to refer to the following extracts of M.F. (D.R.) Instruction No. 7/2023-Cus., dated 28-2-2023 in regard to 'Completion of Data Entry in DIGIT - Issuance of Show Cause Notices and Order-in-Original through DIGIT - Further Instruction" - "4. Types of Cases to be entered in DIGIT : Only those "offence cases" covered under the following categories need to be entered in DIGIT : (A) Cases of Outright smuggling (imports as well as exports) covered under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962; ....... 4.1 It is clarified that the cases booked by the Customs formation during the course of normal executive work need not be entered in DIGIT. For illustration, routine cases booked by the Customs officers on international airports involving minor violations of Baggage Rules; or the cases booked by Assessment Groups in Sea Ports, In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods as 'Baggage' by applying the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows- "5.5 The next issue for consideration is whether the duty is liable to be paid on the confiscated goods by treating them as baggage under Chapter Heading No. 98.03 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. While the revenue's contention is that since the goods have been brought by way of passenger baggage, the baggage rate of duty is applicable. The learned counsel for the appellant contests this point and submits that the rate of duty prescribed under Chapter 98 in respect of baggage can be applied only if the conditions therein are satisfied. The condition to be satisfied are that the goods must be imported by the passenger in his baggage and in respect of baggage, as per Section 78 of the Customs Act, the rate of duty applicable will be the rate in force on the date on which a declaration is made in respect of such baggage under Section 77.In the instant case since the goods are smuggled and the Apex Court has held that smuggled goods cannot be treated as imported goods, the question of classifying them as baggage under Chapter 98 does not arise at all......." 9.27. Thereafter, in Lark Che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with the statutory intent and scheme of the Act, apart from being in consonance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9.31. Even in view of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section 129A, the Tribunal cannot refuse to admit the present appeal against an Order u/s 128A. It is cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that a latter proviso can restrict the application of the main section and the former proviso. This second proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section 129A restricts discretion of the Tribunal including in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A, to refuse to admit an appeal only to those cases, where the value of goods absolutely confiscated or in any disputed case involving duty / differential duty, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue, or the amount of fine or penalty by such order, does not exceed two lakh rupees. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot refuse to admit the present appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A, as the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a robust, statutory shield guaranteeing a comprehensive review of both fact and law. If an appeal is erroneously relegated to revision, the aggrieved person is deprived of factual scrutiny to have evidence re-appreciated. Therefore, to treat an appealable order as merely revisable, would act contrary to the legislative mandate that prioritizes the exhaustive remedy (appeal) over the limited one (revision). The right of appeal being a vested statutory right, by a judicial interpretation as sought by the Respondent, one cannot diminish a substantive right into a discretionary privilege. An appellate forum cannot artificially narrow its own scope of review to relegate a party for revision to quickly dispose of a matter. Doing so would amount to an abdication of its statutory duty to entertain the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the Appellant cannot be relegated to revision u/s 129DD by holding the instant appeal as not maintainable u/s 129A. The objection on maintainability is thus liable for rejection. 11. It would be apt here to also refer to a recent order dated 21.01.2026 of the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. 51745 of 2025 - Salt Experiences & Management Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made in this behalf against any part of the order appealed against and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3).' (emphasis supplied) in section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, it is unarguably clear that, should such response occur, the two are not to be bound to disposed off together. Be that as it may, such memorandum is limited to the extent that the impugned order allowed the plea of the appellant herein and, should that ever be filed, takes on the hue of an appeal which is amenable to disposal without referencing the decision emanating from this proceeding. Furthermore, there is no contest on the facts in the present proceedings; only that the acts of commission were within the ambit of law and that contravention of the law is beyond attendance by customs law. We are of the considered view that, in the context and the circumstances, plea for deferment has not been made in good faith." (emphasis supplied) 12. The above observations also apply in regard to objection in the first part of the response filed by the Revenue to indirectly seek deferment till the period for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or wrong. The Commissioner (Appeal) exercised a lawful discretion to remand." With this concluding stand taken by the Department in written responses to the Appeal, it is clear that according to the Department the Order-in-Appeal is correct exercise of discretion by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and since the Department stand is that the Tribunal shall not enter into whether the remand was right or wrong, there is no question of any appeal by the Department by way of cross-objection. Since, written response to the Appeal has been filed with compilation of judgments before commencement of final arguments on the appeal, the requirements of natural justice are satisfied. 15. The Show Cause Notice in the instant case mainly referred and relied upon, inter alia, upon seizure Panchanama dated 04.10.2022, various statements of the Appellant, Mr. Pranav Shankar Saboo, and Ovais Mohammad Iqbal Merchant to prove smuggling and for confiscation of seized smuggled goods, and liability for penalties proposed. It also relied upon online retail sale price of Jacob & Co., various Invoices and communications for the purpose of ascertaining valuation of seized watches, forensic - WhatsAp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jacob Billionaire Warch BL115.30 USD 28.00,000/- 80.40 22,51,20,000/- 8,66,71,200/- 22,51,20,000/- 8,66,71,200/- *Exchange Rate of US$ as per Notification No.78/2022-Customs (N.T) dated 15.09.2022 is Rs 80.40. 38.2. valuation of other seized watches as well diamond studded Gold Bracelet and Iphone 14 pro 256 GB has been computed as below: - TABLE-8 Value and Applicable Duty Liability upon 6 other watches, one diamond studded Gold bracelet and One iPhone 14 Pro 256 GB S. No (i). Description of Rolex Watch (ii) Model and Serial No. (iii) Value /value assessed in INR (iv) Ex Rate (v) Value in INR (vi) Applicable Duty {38.5% * (vi)} 1 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just Z7J12418 INR 10,64.000/- 10,64,000/- 4,09,640/- 2 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just 0C46G217 INR 10,64,000/- 10,64,000/- 4,09,640/- 3 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just ZV655573 INR 11,68,000/- 11,68,000/- 4,49,680/- Rolex Oyster perpetual date just 237Q5385 INR 4,64,000/- 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l date just 0C46G217 INR 10,64,000/- 10,64,000/- 4,09,640/- 4 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just ZV655573 INR 11,68,000/- 11,68,000/- 4,49,680/- 5 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just 237Q5385 INR 4,64,000/- 4,64,000/- 1,78,640/- 6 Rolex Oyster perpetual date just 861R9269 INR 4,64,000/- 4,64.000/- 1,78,640/- 7 Piaget Limelight Stella Watch 1250352 P11179 Euro 32,800/- 80.80 26,50,240/- 10,20,342/- 8 One Diamond Studded Gold Bracelet INR 40,000 40,000/- 15,400/- 9 iPhone 14 Pro 256 GB - INR 1.39,900 - 1.39,900/- 53,862/- 7,37,86,140 2,84,07,664 16.3. The Appellant also informed that the aforesaid customs duty amount was already deposited by him alongwith interest for the purpose of settlement. 16.4. However, his settlement application was already rejected for want of Baggage Declaration and application of Section 123 qua seized smuggled goods. 16.5. The Appellant in his further detailed reply stated that in order to earn some ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t even in exclusive distributor contract, Jacob & Co. does not offer more than 60% discount on any of their models. (d) On line price of Jacob Billionaire Watch on the website of Chrono24.com, Piaget.com and authenticwatches.com and website of Jacob & Co. was US$33,69,727 /- which comes to Rs. 27,09,26,051/- (e) Copy of Invoice No. 622 dated 22. i2.2020 on 11.11.2022 sent by Ms Natela Lolale appears to be an after thought and calculated action. (f) The Nolicee No. I has not submitted any genuine invoice/documentary evidence which would have been issued in his name. Therefore, in view, of these facts, I hold that the original value of the Jacob Biliionaire Watch seized by the officers of customs vide Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2022 is US$ 2.8 Million only." 18.2. The Appellant's request to re-export was accepted, by giving him an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Act for re-export to Dubai only, within 120 days. He was held liable to pay applicable duty computed at Rs. 8,93,87,044/- with interest, being importer of the seized goods. It was observed that- "7.6 In this case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of the watches from Jacob website HTTPS://JACOBANDCO.COM/TIMEPIECE-PRICES. Even in our exclusive distributor contract, Jacob & Co. is not offering more than 60% discount on any model. I have never heard of a discount of 90% in the watch industry all over the world......." From the above, it is evident that the watch manufacturer [or main supplier] is offering hefty discounts, though quantum of discount can be a point of dispute. 6.1.3 In this regard, I find that the department has disregarded the discounted invoice on the grounds that the department does not take cognizance of unsolicited emails as their genuineness and truthfulness cannot be relied upon. The department has relied upon invoice showing value 28,00,000 USD considering it to be a reliable evidence having legal validity being submitted under legal obligation to submit evidence and making true statement after summon issued by the department to produce evidence and through a statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it is observed that the sequence of events regarding receipt of Invoice No.622 dt.22.10.2020 by the department, are as under: - On 19.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er directions of M/s Jacob & Co., US$ 8,30,000/- was paid in instalments by my company to M/s Haut de Gamma, Singapore, authorised distributor of M/s company. (iv) My company regularly purchases watches of Jacob & Co. from M/s Haut de Gamma, Singapore who are authorised distributors of M/s Jacob & Co. in Singapore availability of funds with us. During the period January 2020 to December, 2020, my company purchased several different watches manufactured by M/s Jacob & Co. from M/s Haut de Gamma, directly from M/s Jacob & Co. @ US$ 8,30,000/- vide Invoice No. 622 dated 22nd December, 2020. My company made payments for three watches to M/s Haut d availability of funds with us." 21. With such evidence, once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) has himself questioned the reliability of the photocopy of the alleged invoice submitted by Sh. Sahoo, stated to be raised by the Manufacturer to Sh. Owais Mohammad Iqbal Merchant, owner of M/s Time In Style Jewellery & Watch, their statements pales into insignificance being uncorroborated and inadmissible. 22. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerit-1 vs Parmarth Iron Pvt Ltd - 2010 (260) EL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso be taken care of by the Adjudicating Authority while deciding the case afresh'. 25. It is seen that the Department has failed to establish the genuineness of the photocopy of the Invoice furnished by Mr. Sahoo for the purpose of valuation of the Jacob & Co. watch. The Appellant consistently claimed himself as importer and owner in various judicial proceedings. No other person has claimed 'ownership'. He has also deposited substantial amounts for seeking release of goods seeking reexport. Mere statements obtained in custody cannot denude him from the status of importer and legitimate claimant. 26. In view of the above, the valuation adopted by the Department could not be established in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority has erred in not accepting the valuation based on manufacturer's invoice issuance of which was confirmed by the manufacturer to the Department by email, and has mechanically adopted the valuation proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) ought to have accepted the value of US$ 8,30,000/ - as per the Invoice confirmed by the Chief Legal Officer of the Manufacturer, after having recorded positive observations in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 112(a) and 112(b) is reduced to Rs. 10 Lakhs. The penalty under Section 114AA is reduced from Rs. 2 Crores to Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Appellant would be entitled for set off of the amounts already deposited. 32. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Department is directed to redeem the confiscated goods within two weeks, if option of redemption on payment of redemption fine and amounts as stated above is availed by the Appellant. (Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2026) ============= Document 1 Slo Jacob & Co Genove LLC 48 East 5-7th Street, 4th FI. New York, NY 10022 (212) 888-2330 INVOICE CUST. DATE: 622 TIME 12/22/2020 PAGE NO .: 1 JACIB&CO BILL TO SHIP FROM SHIP TO TIME IN STYLE JEWELLERY&WATCH BUEONO JEWELLERY CO. LTD. JEWEL PLAZA UNIT A2, 8/F DEIRA GOLD SOUQ CHINA INSURANCE BUILDING DUBAI, UAE KOWLOON TST, HK Your.PO# Our PO# 1 NONE Terms: Net:30 Day , Due: 01/21/2021 Ship Via S. STYLE DESCRIPTION image" Retail Price Dick PrlÄů BL:15.30.BD.UB.A3080 SN: PIECE UNIQUE BILLIONAERE III - 18K WHITE GOLD; MANUAL SKELETON TOURBILLON JCAMO9; 19 JEWELS; C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o M/s Noman Iqbal Watches Trading LLC Dubai showing value of Billionaire-Ill watch @usd 2,00,000/ -; and (iv) Invoice No. 622 dated 22.12.2020 issued by M/s Jacob & Co. USA in the name of my company - M/s Time & Style Jewellery and Watches LLC Dubai showing sale of Billionaire -III Watch @ US$ 2.8 Million . That, I informed them that I have no role in this case and I have neither purchased the watch seized from Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada nor sold it to him and I cannot say anything about the transactions between Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada and Noman Iqbal Watch trading LLC Dubai and their invoices. I also informed them that although my company had purchased one Billionaire -III Watch from M/s Jacob & Co. USA in the year 2020 vide invoice No. 622 but the copy of invoice No. 622 which was shown to me is not genuine. I also informed them that although the list price of the said watch was US$ 2.8 Million but a discount of 70.36% was given by M/s Jacob & Co. to my company and the price actually paid by my company for the said watch was US$ 8,30,000/- only. I also told them that I did not sell the said watch to Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada or Mr. Dhakan Hiren Vithaldas of M/s Mashoom ....