TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....classifiable under CTH 7608 as against declared classification of CTH 7604 for aluminium profiles. Accordingly alleging mis- declaration of classification and valuation show cause notice was issued for redetermination of classification and value which attracted differential duty. The goods were also held to be liable for confiscation and accordingly redemption fine and penalty was also proposed. The Commissioner in the impugned orders based on the detailed investigations redetermined the classification from CTH 76042990 to CTH 7608 2000 and redetermined the value based on the recovered documents and accordingly differential duty was confirmed. Goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) and under Section 114A /114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner in the impugned order has demanded differential duty for the past imports for the period from 19.01.2011 to December 2012 by invoking Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that the extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd both sides. The basic allegation of the department is that the appellant had mis-declared the description of the goods and also investigations unearthed parallel invoices for the imports showing that the goods were undervalued. 5.1. In appeal No. C/20579/2015 we find that the two show-cause notices were issued first show-cause notice dated 17.04.2014 for the live bill of entry No. 3350643 dated 24.09.2013 and subsequent 8 bills of entry which was intercepted and examined by SIIB. The second show-cause notice dated 13.08.2014 were issued for past imports undertaken by the appellant demanding differential duty in the case of 100 bills of entry. In appeal no. C/20722/2016 show cause notice dated 09.10.2014 was issued for mis-declaration of valuation for 3 bills of entry filed by the appellant M/s. Tricone Building Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. 5.2. In the case of live bill of entry No.3350643 dated 24.09.2013 the Commissioner observed that it was filed declaring them as aluminium profiles in mill finish valued at USD 42,338. On examination of the consignment, it was found that along with aluminium profiles, tubes were imported which were also rightly classifiable under CTH 7608 2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same based on the above details which reads as follows: "19.1 Quantity of each type of item according to description, classification and value of imported goods as per the above table is summarized below: Sl. No. Description Finish CTH Weight in Kgs. Actual Value as per recovered invoices 1. Profiles Mill Finish 7604 2990 7524.79 21346.70 2. Profiles Wood Finish 7604 2990 1885.28 9803.48 3. Profiles Anodised 7604 2990 976.83 3406.21 4. Tubes Mill Finish 7608 2000 3999.13 11329.53 5. Tubes Wood Finish 7608 2000 1897.95 9869.35 Total Ex Works Value 55755.27 5.5 The inspection report placed by the appellant on record reads as follows: classification of samples (i) Sample number 1 having photographs of 1-3 are of different types of pipes and tubes which of thickness of more ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation of goods had paid the differential duty of Rs.41,879/- on account of classification and Rs.8,81,204/- on account of valuation. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of differential duty of Rs.8,81,204/- along with the interest paid by the appellant on account of difference in value and we also uphold the demand of Rs.41,879/- on account of change in classification. Since the goods were mis declared both on account of classification and valuation, we uphold the confiscation of goods but however reduce the redemption fine to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. We also uphold the penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Byju K Thomas under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Section 114AA is set aside. 6. With regard to subsequent 8 bills of entry since there is no dispute on valuation the demand of differential duty is based on re- classification of the products. For the subsequent eight bills of entry filed by the appellant we do not find any samples being drawn and also the impugned order does not specify which of these items imported by the appellant were to be reclassified as is done in the case of bill of ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we confirm the demand of duty on account of freight charges for the past clearances for the normal period. 8. With regard to appeal No. C/20722/2016, we find that the appellant M/s. Tricone Building Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. imported three consignments declaring them as aluminium profiles vide bills of entry Nos.5325746 dated 29.11.2011, 5325769 dated 29.11.2011 and 3065383 dated 22.08.2013. The investigations with regard to the appellant M/s. Thomson Impex in appeal No. C/20979/2015 had unearthed parallel invoices wherein it was noticed that the goods imported by them were undervalued. The present appellant is a sister concern of M/s. Thomson Impex and therefore the documents during investigations revealed that both were importing aluminium profiles and undervaluing the same which resulted in the issue of a show-cause notice dated 09.10.2014. 8.1 The investigations against the appellant M/s. Thomas Impex also implicated his sister concern Tricone Building Products (I) (P) Ltd. to whom show cause notice dated 09.10.2014 was issued. The bills of entry involved in this show cause notice are 3065383 dated 22.08.2013, 5325746 dated 29.11.2011 and 5325769 dated 29.11.2011. Based on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lector of Central Excise, A.P. 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) dated 20.04.2006". 8.3 In view of the above, the demand in this appeal on account of valuation is upheld only for the normal period. Accordingly, we set aside the demand for the extended period along with penalty imposed on the appellant and on Shri. Byju Thomas director of Tricone Building Products under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.4 The penalty imposed on Harikumar on the ground that the differential value based on the parallel invoices was being collected and forwarded to the supplier through Harikumar, the Group General Manger of M/s. Elite Extrusions LLC, Dubai. With regard to undervaluation and mis-classification undertaken by the appellant violating the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that Shri. Harikumar, the General Manager of the Supplier cannot be held to be violating the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we do not find any justification in imposing penalty on him, the same is set aside. 8.5. Summing up, (a) we confirm the demand of demand of duty along with interest on bill of entry No. 3350643 dated 24.09.2013 since there is mis-declaration of classificati....