Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

CC (Import), ICD, TKD, New Delhi Vs. Sodagar Knitwear - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (08 May 2018)

The facts which are admitted need not be proved



The present appeal is against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Respondent-Assessee imported certain goods and filed Bill of Entry and declared various items such as Baby Caps, Cloth Gloves, Baby Bootie, Baby Tights and Baby tops. When the goods were examined, certain discrepancies were noticed in respect of the total quantities on some of the declared goods. Further, certain extra items were also found during examination including adult jacket of 'Versace' brand. The Customs Authorities investigated the charges of mis-declaration as well as undervaluation of the impugned goods. The imported goods were not as per the declarations made in the Bill of Entry. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner in which the declared transaction value was rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules; the assessable value was re-determined in terms of Rule 7 and enhanced to Rs. 39,64,694. The adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine and penalties. Differential duty of customs was demanded and penalties were also imposed on the appellant as well as the Partners.

On Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that, there was no mis-declaration of the goods, since the departmental officers have not recorded the length of the garment in the examination report. He also set aside the re-determination of the value of the imported goods on the basis of market enquiry. Finally, he set aside the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeal.

The Respondent-Assessee filed Bill of Entry for import of certain goods and when the consignment was examined it was noticed that the quantities of goods imported did not tally with that declared in the Bill of Entry. It was noticed that a few extra items were also found. It is evident that, extra items have been found including adult jacket 'Versace' brand. In particular, it is evident that, the branded goods bearing the brand name Versace stand imported in the consignment which has not been declared. Consequently, there has been mis-declaration on the part of the importer and hence, confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(l) of Act, is upheld.

The Customs Authorities re-determined the value of the imported goods in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Since, the importer had failed to advance any documents/invoice to substantiate the value of the goods, the transaction value stands rejected and the value of the goods have been re-determined as per Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It is noteworthy that, the representative of the importer has been specifically shown the basis for re-determination of the value and his statement recorded by the Customs Officers. It is on record that, Eklovey Chug, Manager of the importer has specifically admitted in his statement that, he agreed with the manner of calculating the assessable value and differential duty.

It is settled position of law that, the facts which are admitted need not be proved. Further, present Tribunal in the case of Jai Shiv Trading Company has observed that, it is settled position of law that once the importer has admitted the re-determination of value on record and has accepted the method of such valuation, he cannot subsequently challenge the same on the same ground. The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the instant case.

The impugned order is set aside and order-in-original is restored. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the redemption fine merits reduction from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Further, the penalty imposed on partner under Section 112(b) of the Act is reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The appeal filed by the Revenue is partially allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved