Page 159 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SGI CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-KANDLA, GUJARAT 381

the correct value of the goods in the Bills of Entry with an option of redemption
of goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 18 Lakhs under Section 125 of the
Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 1,75,000/- was also imposed under Section
112 of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Being aggrieved by Order-in-Original the appellant have filed the
appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Learned Commissioner (Ap-
peals) modified the order of the Adjudicating Authority however reduce the re-
demption fine from Rs. 18 Lakhs to Rs. 12 Lakhs. Therefore, the present appeal is
filed by the appellant.
4. Shri S.J. Vyas, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that goods were wrongly confiscated as the Adjudication Order is be-
yond jurisdiction of the officer who passed said order. He submits that as regard
SEZ Unit the competent authority is the jurisdictional officer whereas the order
was passed by the Additional Commissioner (Adj.) Customs House, Kandla who
has no jurisdiction over SEZ. Therefore orders of both the lower authorities are
liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He further submits that the confisca-
tion of the goods particularly which is imported by SEZ Unit cannot be done
when a warehouse Bill of Entry is filed. In this regard he placed reliance on In-
struction No. 6 issued under No. F.5/1/2006-SEZ wherein he takes us Para 4(iv)
and submits that the Bill of Entry shall be on the basis of value declared by the
SEZ Units. He submits that as per the said clause even if any doubt about the
declared value the assessment of the goods will be done at the time of clearance
of goods from SEZ to the domestic market. Therefore, in the present case the val-
ue declared as per invoice by the appellant in the Warehousing Bill of Entry can-
not be questioned and for this reason goods are not liable for confiscation.
4.1 He further submits that even assuming, not admitting, the value
declared by the appellant is questionable, only on the basis of NIDB Data it can-
not be said that the appellant have misdeclared the value in absence of any evi-
dence of under valuation. The valuation was declared as per the purchase in-
voice therefore, there is no misdeclaration and consequently goods are not liable
for confiscation. In support of the submission he placed reliance on the judgment
of Shashi Dhawal Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai -
2018 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT MUMBAI = 2019 (370) E.L.T. 999 (Tri.-Mumbai). He
also relied on the Ministry of Commerce & Industry Notification dated 5th Au-
gust, 2016 and Notification dated 5th August, 2016 (F. No. D.6/40/2012-SEZ) (F.
No. C.1/1/2009-SEZ).
5. On the other hand, Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent (Au-
thorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the find-
ing of the impugned order. He submits that the partner of the appellant firm has
accepted the enhancement of the value of imported goods and also waived the
Show Cause Notice therefore, it is established that the appellant have
misdeclared the value in the Bill of Entry. Accordingly, the order passed by the
lower authority confiscating the goods is correct and legal. He placed reliance on
this Tribunal Order No. A/11519/2019, dated 8-8-2019 of West Zonal Bench
Ahmedabad in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mundra v. Artex Textile Pvt.
Limited.
6. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  159