M/S. Pacific International vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iv

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal Nos.C/702, 712 & 715/2010-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.36-41/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2010, dated 24.09.2010 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-IV]

M/s. Pacific International Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E., Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance

None - for the appellant

Shri Amresh Jain, DR - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order Nos.52282-52284/2015, dated 01.07.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh:

Appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Appeal No.36-41/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2010, dated 24.09.2010 which upheld the Orders-in-Original as regards the enhancement of the CIF value of imported goods and modified the same as regards the imposition of penalty which was enhanced.

2. When the case was called, there was no representation nor was there any request for adjournment. Even on earlier date (27.03.2015) no one was present on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeals on merit.

3. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant imported worn clothing and filed 3 Bills of Entry during the value US dollars 0.70 per kilograms for 2 of the Bills of Entry and US dollar 0.65 per kilogram for the third Bill of Entry. The primary adjudicating authority found the impugned goods to be undervalued and also having been imported in violation of the import-export policy as the import of such goods was restricted and the appellant did not have any license to import the same. Accordingly, the primary adjudicating authority enhanced the value and imposed redemption fine and penalty against which the appellant filed the appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue also filed appeals on the ground that the redemption fine/penalty was inadequate and sought enhancement thereof. Considering the appeals of both sides, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order.

4. The appellant assessee is its appeal before CESTAT contended that the value was correctly declared and no grounds have been given for rejecting the transaction value and also questioned the market inquiry based on which the value has been enhanced and penalty increased. It also contended that the impugned goods were freely importable.

5. Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the margin of profit had not been correctly computed resulting in inadequate fine and penalty and therefore the value and penalty have been correctly enhanced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that at the time of adjudication by the primary adjudicating authority, the appellant-assessee had waived the Show Cause Notice. Waiver of Show Cause Notice obviously means that the assessee had willingly given up its right for full observance of the principles of natural Justice. Further, we find that three dates were fixed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for personal hearing but the appellant did not appear for personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). Even so, we find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has discussed the basis of enhancement of value in accordance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 as also the basis for holding the imported goods to be in the restricted category. It is also seen that the redemption fine was imposed in accordance with the market price obtained as a result of market inquiry . The Commissioner (Appeals) has also found that the appellant was a repeat offender and had imported the impugned goods in violation of the import and export policy and also indulged in under-valuation and therefore enhanced the penalty. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting appellate intervention. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-4-