Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1447 - AT - CustomsReliability on statements - Undervaluation of imported goods - Booster Pumps and water purifier parts like RO Membrane - rejection of declared value - demand of differential duty - whether the statement of the partner of the Company recorded can be taken as reliable evidence with allegation of coercion etc. is made and when the evidence is not corroborated by independent evidence/documents? Held that:- The evidence that the Department claims to possess is nothing but some documents which were obtained through the appellants themselves and is contained in emails. On a perusal of the said e-mails from M/s Micro Filter Co. Ltd & others would clearly indicate that they were tailor made as per request of the importer well after the imports have taken place. The existence of the emails/ documents at the time of import is very much doubtful. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the department that such evidences were recovered in course of search. The records indicate that the same are produced by the appellants. The appellants submitted that they have obtained the value declared by other importers during the relevant time. Perusal of the same reveals that prices at which other importers imported identical items, from the same companies at about the same time, are either comparable or less than value declared by the appellants. It is found that the Department has ignored this fact and has not produced any import data of the contemporaneous import to indicate that the appellants have misdeclared the value of the import. This being the case the Department's contention that the appellant misdeclared the imported items cannot be accepted. Therefore the declared prices cannot be rejected in terms of Customs Valuation Rules. Thus, because of the very fact that the Department has not relied upon any other important documentary evidences or any contemporaneous import which were made at higher price than the appellants, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Department - demand not sustainable - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|