Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Dox Industries Private Limited Vs. ... vs New Delhi on 21 November, 2008
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision:21.11.2008 Customs Appeal No.72 of 2006 Arising out of the order in original No.73/2005 dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (judicial) 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Appellant Respondent
M/s Dox Industries Private Limited vs. C.C., ICD, New Delhi Appearance: Shri Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for the appellant
Shri S.K. Panda, Authorized Departmental Representative (Jt.CDR) for the Revenue Coram : Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Order No.____________________ Per P.K. Das:
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant imported Hook and Loop tapes (Velcro Tape) vide bill of entry No. 105284 dated 31st May, 2004. It has been alleged that the appellant undervalued the goods. The Customs officer recorded the statement of Shri Ravi Malhotra Director of Appellant on 9.6.04 , 10.6.04, 19.10.04. He has accepted the undervaluation of the goods and deposited the differential duty on 15.6.04.The show cause notice dated 8.12.2004 was issued proposing demand of duty and to appropriate the amount as deposited by them and imposition of penalty and confiscation of the seized goods. Commissioner of Customs, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.8,72,024/- and appropriated the said amount as deposited by them. He has also confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.3 lakhs and penalty of Rs.75,000/- on the appellant company.
2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the valuation was enhanced on the basis of internet which is not permissible under law. He further submits that the appellant imported the goods first time and they have no knowledge on the procedure and the statements were recorded under duress and coercion. He also submits that there is no material placed by the Revenue for enhancement of the value. He relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal on this issue. Alternatively, he submits that the amount of fine and penalty are excessive.
3. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. He submits that the statements are recorded on three occasions and Director of the appellant company accepted undervaluation of the goods. He further placed the copy of quotation of the contemporaneous invoice price.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record it is seen from the impugned order that the Director of the appellant company in his statement categorically stated that value of goods were on lower side. It is noted that the Director of the Appellant company accepted the enhanced value on the basis of internet. We agree with the findings of the Commissioner that the appellants have not retracted the statements. It is also noted that statements were recorded on three occasions and thereafter the appellant deposited the duty without any protest. The plea taken by the appellant in reply to the show cause notice is an after thought. So the enhancement of valuation and demand of duty are justified. We find that the appellant knowingly declared the lower value and therefore, confiscation of the goods is upheld. However, we find that the appellant imported the goods first time and therefore, after considering the facts of the case, we reduce the redemption fine and penalty to Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.
5. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) scd/