M/S. Shri Garungovind Exim Pvt Ltd vs C.C.New Delhi (Icd Tkd)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/591/2014 dated: 01.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Shri Garungovind Exim Pvt Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.New Delhi (icd Tkd) Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. R K Grover, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.30.04.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51967 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are as follows:

The appellant imported 121 BLS of used clothes (Mixed Cotton Rags) from M/s Shanghai Yangtse Industril Limited and filed Bill of Entry No. 2423002 dated 14.06.2014 before the Customs authorities for clearance of the imported consignment. The value declared in the said Bill of Entry was not accepted by the Customs Department and upon proper investigation, the declared value furnished by the importer was rejected and the assessable value was enhanced by the Adjudicating Authority. Penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- was imposed in the Adjudication order dated 19.09.2013. Appeal filed against imposition of penalty was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Hence, this present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the quantum of penalty imposed in the impugned order is arbitrary, considering the fact that the appellant is a first time importer of the goods in question. He further submits that Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 has not been properly applied in enhancing the declared value. It is the submission of the ld. Advocate that in absence of availability of correct/actual price of identical or similar goods, DRI's letter issued in 2009 cannot be relied upon for enhancing the declared value. The ld. Advocate prays for reducing the penalty amount on the ground that demurrage and additional shipping charges have been incurred by the appellant for delayed adjudication of the matter.

4. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

5. I have heard the ld. counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

6. I find that rejection of the declared value by the Customs Department is justified in the present case, but its enhancement by referring to Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, in my opinion, is not legal and proper. Enhancement of value, solely based on the DRI's letter dated 06.01.2009, without comparing the imported goods with any identical/similar goods imported at or about the same time, may not be proper. Hence, quantum of penalty imposed in the adjudication order, is in the higher side. Further, considering the fact that the appellant had incurred demurrage and other shipping charges for delayed adjudication of the case, which has a direct bearing on the profitability in the appellant's firm; and that the appellant is a first time importer of the goods, I am of the view that interest of justice weighs in favour of reduction in the quantum of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order.

7. In view of above, the penalty amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- imposed in the Adjudication Order is reduced to Rs. 1 Lakh. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1