9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this common order. 2. M/s. Overseas Development Corporation (hereinafter ODC) based in USA are suppliers of Steel Materials. Shri Anil Mody is their indenting agent in India. Shri Dungarmal Doshi, Proprietor of M/s. Dungarmal Prithviraj & Co. (hereinafter DPC) had imported several consignments from ODC. Some of the consignments were cleared by them in their own name. Some of the consignments were sold by them to M/s. Alfa Transcore Industries, M/s. Transtamp Laminators (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Suparshva Industries. Shri A.G. Deshmukh is the Director of Transtamp Laminators (I) Pvt. Ltd. 3. A number of consignments had been imported and cleared by DPC and/or the 3 corporations named above who had bought the material on High Sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "After seeing these invoices it is clear that suppliers have issued two invoices and there appears to be a dispute for payment difference in value between the two parties." - (statement dated 13-5-1999) 6. In his statement dated 18-5-99 again these 'A suffix' invoices were shown to him. His observations read as follows : "The dispute appears to be regarding the payment of the amount shown in the second set of invoices with suffix 'A'. This amount is the amount not yet paid by M/s. Dungarmal Prithviraj & Co. However part of the amount of USD38000 have been paid by M/s. Dungarmal Prithviraj & Co. to M/s. ODC through Israeli Discount Bank, USA. This part amount paid pertains to invoice Nos. 93288, dt. 30-5-1994 and 93292, dated 13-5-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same in both the invoices, no remittance was made by him for the additional amounts. 10. M/s. Suparshva Industries had filed 3 Bills of Entry after having bought the goods from DPC on high seas sale basis. The statement of Kirit Bagaria partner of the buyer was recorded. He admitted that the price paid by him was less than the prevailing prices. But there was nothing in his statement to show that whether he had any knowledge of under-invoicing nor is there anything to show whether any additional payments were made by the buyer to DPC. 11. Statement of Mahendra Parekh of Alfa Transcore Industries was recorded which was equally bland. No corroboration of undervaluation comes out of his statement. 12. The 3rd buyers were M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New York crediting ODC with a sum of US$37,982.90. The debit party name is shown by an account number in a Bank in Geneva. On the body of the fax copy of the said advice the following is written by hand : "DUNGERMAL Inv. Nos.93292 93288" These two invoices dated 13-5-1994 and 30-5-1994 respectively were issued by ODC for value of US$485 and US$ 585 PMT for goods imported by DCP and sold on high seas basis to Alfa Transcore Industries. 19. In the Show Cause Notice dated 24-6-1999 the allegation was made that on perusal of the faxes it appeared that the values in the said 2 invoices were understated to the extent of US$38,000 was paid to ODC through an undisclosed Bank account by DPC. The contents of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclaimed any knowledge thereof. It appears that these were received as part of information the source thereof is not disclosed. Shri Nankani argued that in the absence origin thereof there was no value of evidence attached to these invoices. 22. The 3rd group is of cases covered by adjudication orders No. 14/2002, 40/2002, 44/2002 and 49/2002; continuing the same assumption that where declared value was 'X' the correct value must be 'Y'. No specific information is disclosed or evidence is shown to establish the under-valuation. In these cases the imports were made by DPC and demands were confirmed against high seas buyers M/s. Supershav Inds. 23. On behalf of Shri Anil Mody Shri Anil Balani Advocate reiterated the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared that Doshi has made a prima facie case in his support. We mark that at some places when 'A' suffix invoices were show to Mody he had claimed that they were indicative of additional payments. On this aspect, Shri Nankani's additional submission was that as per the original statements it was no indicative of any extra payments having been made by DPC. 27. We have narrated above the statements of the buyers. In the statements recorded by the DRI there was no admission. From what is disclosed in the show cause notice they were not asked about any additional payments. Before going into the evidentiary value of duplicate invoices, it is to be seen whether there were any additional payments sent by DPC to ODC. If DPC were to send e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
