TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. Per M.V.Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-original No.03/2006-Adjn.-Cus dt. 17/1/2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that during the year 1998-2000, the respondent had imported Copper Clad Laminates (CCL) on 14 occasions at ICD/CFS, Hyderabad. A show-cause notice dt. 15/05/2001 was issued to the respondent proposing confiscation of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.726 dt. 14/11/2000 and demanding differential duty in respect of the goods imported and already cleared under Bills of Entry No.589 dt. 7/10/1999 and No.303 dt. 12/5/2000. During the course of investigation, it was noticed by the officers that the respondent has cleared 10 consignments under various Bills of Entry from 19/8/1998 to 2/12/1999 imported through Hyderabad. On the conclusion of investigation, it was noticed by the officers that the price declared by the respondent-imported needs to be re-assessed as the goods were mis-declared as seconds or rejects while goods which were imported were of prime quality. A show-cause notice dt. 14/8/2003 was issued for rejection of transaction val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the evidence which were on record. He would submit that statements recorded before the Customs officers needs to be considered as evidence and cannot be easily brushed aside. For this, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CC(Preventive) Vs. Puni Dhapa Lokeswara Rao [2009(248) ELT 141 (Cal.)]. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Santhanam Vs. CCE C, Madurai-2 [1995(79) ELT 564 (Mad.)] and submit that he rely on the case for the proposition that there is a preponderance of probability and Revenue cannot be tied down by strict rules of evidence. He would also draw our attention to the statements of Shri Dhyaneshwar Yadav and submit that impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh. 4. Ld. Counsel would submit that the ld. Commissioner in his finding has examined the statements given by the witnesses and the evidence recorded during the course of cross-examination and has come to a conclusion that there is no assertion from any of the evidences that the materials received from the respondents is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice proceeded on the basis that the imported goods were of the prime quality but were mis-declared as rejects relying upon chiefly on the statements of buyers including that of importer and on the basis of investigation in the past cases of the importer at Hyderabad elsewhere. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings initiated by the said show-cause notice dt. 14/8/2003 by recording the following findings:- 11. First of all, let me consider the statements of buyers. The common averment in all their statements as well as during cross-examination relates to purchase of copper clad laminates in certain cases and semi-finished PCBs. There is no categorical assertion from any of them to sustain the charge that the material supplied to them is of prime quality. There were inconsistencies some stating the goods are FR-2, some stating FR-4; but none of them relatable to these imports. In the case of one buyer namely SB Marketing, on the basis of values raised in the invoice, it was argued that the goods were of prime quality. While this may show a hint of suspicion, it is now well established that suspicion however gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the past consignments which were imported by the appellant. The order recorded by this Bench on this issue is reproduced herein below:- 12. As regards past imports covered by Bills of Entry dt. 12/5/2000 and 7/10/1999, we have found no case for the Revenue. It appears that the yardstick applied in relation to the live consignment has been mechanically extended to the past imports. We do not think that the view taken in respect of the live consignment can be extrapolated mindlessly to cover the past imports. We have not found any evidence in support of the findings of misdeclaration of description and value, entered by the Commissioner in relation to the past imports. The only document on the basis of which these findings were entered in relation to the goods covered by Bill of Entry dt. 12/5/2000 is an invoice, copy of which is available at page 93 of paper book Volume-II. The Revenue has considered this document to be an invoice issued by Isola Asia Pacific (Singapore) Inc, to R.R. Enterprises. There is no mention of the name of the consignee / buyer in this document, nor does this document bear any date, nor is it duly signed. The Revenue has heavily relied on this document ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
