TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. 2. The charges against the appellants are that on the basis of intelligence that they were undervaluing the ICs and Transistors, Bill of Entry No. 240432 was intercepted by the intelligence department of DRI wherein they had declared the goods at the value of Rs. 1,26,812/-. The goods were found to be branded components of brand names like Mosel, Dallas, NEC, Japan, Sony, Japan, etc. Statements were recorded from the above named persons. Shri S.G. Govindarajulu in his statement admitted that he was introduced by his friends to one Shri Dinesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar wanted to import the goods in S.G. Govindarajulu Company s name for which Shri S.G. Govindarajulu was promised Rs. 10,000/- per consignment. Three consignments had already been imported by Dinesh Kumar in the name of M/s. Sheraton Overseas. Shri S.G. Govindarajulu admitted that he did not know the actual value of the import as Shri Dinesh Kumar negotiated the supply and financed the import. 3. Shri Dinesh Kumar of M/s. Utkal Impex, Mumbai admitted before the authorities that he only imported the goods in the name of M/s. Sheraton Overseas; that Shri Govindarajulu used to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it was due to threat, coercion from the department that they admitted in their statement and given a letter also on 18-8-2000, the next date of recording the statement dated 17-8-2000 while they were in custody. 6. The Commissioner did not accept their plea in the impugned order. He has rejected the retraction as an after-thought and has noted that the quotation can be accepted as they had admitted its authenticity and hence on that basis has enhanced the value of the goods and directed them to pay the differential duty and confiscated the goods. 7. We have heard Shri G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate along with Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate for appellants and Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, ld. SDR for the Revenue. 8. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that it is a settled law that quotation cannot be accepted as an evidence for enhancing the value. He contended that the Commissioner s view that appellants had admitted in their statements and had given the quotation itself cannot be a ground for enhancement of the value. He pointed out to the circumstances under which the statement was recorded on 17-8-2000 and due to pressure they had to give in writing on 18-8-2000 that goods were pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in the case of K.I. Pavunny v. ACCE, Cochin, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 have clearly laid down that admissions should be corroborative for the purpose of linking the same to uphold the offence. He also relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. East Punjab Traders - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11. He relied on the judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Another v. State of Madya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 which lays down the preposition pertaining to circumstantial evidence. Even in case the conviction and circumstantial evidence, the evidence should be clear and consistent. The circumstance should be of conclusive in nature. He also relied on the judgment of Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 (Cal.) wherein law pertaining to the voluntary admission has been laid down. 9. Ld. SDR pointed out to the admissions made in the letter dated 18-8-2000 by both the appellants wherein they have stated that the exact value of imported goods were in terms of copy of quotation submitted by them and that they have agreed to adopt and accept the same value and willing to pay differential duty amount. He also referred to the statement recorded on 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is could be taken as defence during the proceedings and should not have left the investigation half-way. Further, he should have gone through the quotation of contemporaneous import and filed Bills of Entry of other importers to find out the correctness of value of the goods. The lapse of the Investigating Officer is clear and has been brought out by the ld. Senior Counsel in terms of well laid down judgments which are cited before us. Even otherwise, the common sense and prudence require that the Investigating Authority ought not to have accepted their mere admission and their producing the quotation and should have insisted on the appellants producing the evidence or the authorities themselves ought to have known through various Custom Houses as to the value of the goods prevailing in the market. Therefore, subsequent retraction in the present case cannot be set aside as an after-thought , for the reason that fundamental rule for enhancing the value is evidence of contemporaneous import and not a mere quotation. Normally, quotations are not immediately acted upon but the parties negotiate further and arrive at an agreement which is reflected on the invoices. There is no such quo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
