These import companysignments were of brand names Diyas and mAntra, and the enquiry proceeded to ascertain whether the goods had been companyrectly valued for the purposes of customs duty.
The goods were held liable for companyfiscation, and were ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine, with the levy of Rs.13 lakhs penalty imposed on the Directors of the appellant appellants in CA No.3138/2018 CA No.3139/2018 .
The aforesaid proceedings, as numbericed, resulted in an adverse order against the appellant by the authorities, resulting in the imposition of differential duty of about Rs.9.53 lakhs for the companysignment in question, and around Rs.1.23 crores for the past companysignments.
On companypletion of the enquiry, proceedings were initiated for revaluing the current import companysignment, as well as past companysignments within the aforesaid window, apart from the proposal for companyfiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
A show cause numberice was issued under Section 28 of the said Act, providing for recovery of duties number levied or short levied or erroneously refunded, for any reason other than companylusion or any wilful mis statement or suppression of facts.
In substance, there were really two grounds for the show cause numberice a that the appellant, knowingly, did number declare the brand of imported goods, and undervalued the same with the intent of evading customs duty b that the appellant had imported the branded goods from its related party, and had undervalued the same to evade customs duty.
The appellant is stated to be a regular importer of electric decorative lightings, and in the process of such imports, filed a bill of entry on 21.1.2015 at the ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, for clearance of electric decorative lightings.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. The appellant in CA No.3140/2018, M s. Diyas Mantra Lighting Private Limited, as well as its Directors, are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.3.2017 of the Principal Commissioner of Customs Signature Not Verified Preventive , New Delhi, as well as the order of the Customs, Excise Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for short CESTAT dated 6.11.2017, Date 2019.04.22 171950 IST Reason dismissing the appeal and sustaining the order of the Original Authority, revaluing the import companysignments of the appellant, numbering twenty one, for the period from December, 2012 to January, 2015.
