2004 (12) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the SIIB of Chennai Custom House conducted detailed examination of the goods and also market enquiries and found that the goods have been grossly under-valued. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The original authority in the adjudication proceedings demanded the differential duty of Rs. 8,15,661.56 after fixing CIF value of the goods imported at US $ 16,739.30. The goods were confiscated. The redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed. A personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed. The appellant was not successful in his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has confirmed the order of the Original Authority. Hence the appellant has come before this Tribunal against the impugned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T. 528] wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Court that Section 14 of the Act is to be read along with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. (9)      Enhancement of the value has been done based on the appellants statements taken under coercion and duress. (10)   There is no contemporaneous import to reject the transaction value. (11)   The authorities have not taken in to account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractor v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. (12)   The Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account the decision cited by the appellant in the case of M/s. Markandi Prasad Radha Krishna Prasad Pvt. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the correct method in accordance with the valuation rules in enhancing the CIF value of the imported goods. The original authority in para 8 of his order dated 24-1-2002, has stated the manner of arriving at the assessable value of the imported goods. According to him the value declared by the appellants was very low. Hence the same could not be accepted as per rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. Since the goods imported are of various countries origin and brand and no identical imports have been noticed during the relevant period, the value could not be determined under Rule 5 and 6 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules. No data was available for duty paid imports or for condition of value of goods under Rules 7 and 7A. The importe....