Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Martwin Electronics, Shri Chandrakant K. Zangda, M/s. Rachana Electronics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad

Undervaluation of import of electronic components - department has built up its case on the basis of export declarations filed by the suppliers of the goods - Admissibility of evidence - Penalty u/s 114A r.w. 112 - Held that:- Export Declarations are obtained from the Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong under the cover of their letter on letter head and signature, through Commission for India (High Commission/Embassy) in Hong Kong. It is also stated by Hong Kong Customs that they have no ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble as evidence

A perusal of the show cause notice dated 06.5.1998 reveals that appellants have not produced any evidence to substantiate that the invoice value declared by them are correct by way of showing value of contemporaneous imports etc. On the other hand, we find that the Department has brought in evidences such as the export declarations along with the declarations certifying its accuracy, obtained through official channels under the signature and letter head of Customs depa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the department had discharged the burden of proof by way of giving declaration received from the Hong Kong, Customs. No evidence whatsoever in support of the price declared by the suppliers has been brought on record by the appellants at the time of adjudication, or de-novo adjudication or till now. - no reason to interfere with the impugned order-in-original - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. C/153,154/2007, C/180/2007 - ORDER No. A/11335-11337/2015 - Dated:- 23-9-2015 - Mr. P. K. Das, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase are that, on an intelligence that M/s. Martwin Electronics, situated at 366, 2nd Floor, Ahmed Mansion, Lamington Road, Mumbai indulged in undervaluation of electronic components imported from Hong Kong, the officers of DRI, Mumbai searched the common office-cum-residence premises of M/s. Martwin Electronics and M/s. Rachna Electronics (appellants herein) on 07.7.1995. Investigations were also conducted at Hong Kong with regard to the exports made by M/s. Batshita International Limited (suppl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tom House, Mumbai. 3. The subject matter involved in the present appeals revolve around the import of ICs, Diodes, Transistors, Transducers, Thyristrers, Triac, Diac, Capacitors etc. at Ahmedabad Air Cargo complex during the period from November 1993 to July 1994, covered by 16 Bills of Entry as detailed in the Annexure A to the show cause notice dated 06.11.1998. It is alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants had undervalued the impugned goods in as much as the value shown in the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

26.09.2000 wherein, he confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 71,15,105/-along with interest and held the goods liable to confiscation. He also imposed penalty of equivalent amount of duty of ₹ 71,15,105/-, under Section 114A read with 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. A personal penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- was also imposed on Shri Chandrakant Zangda, Proprietor/ Partner of the appellant Companies, under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. 5. In de-novo proceedings, the Commissioner vide the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty on the appellants along with interest. The impugned goods were held liable for confiscation. Equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant companies and penalty of ₹ 25 Lakhs was imposed on Shri Chandrakant Zangda, under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Heard both sides. The contention of the learned C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the invoices etc. He also relied upon case laws of the Hon ble Apex Court and the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue strongly rebutted the contentions of the learned Consultant and submits that export declarations were admissible under the provisions of Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submits that the export declarations were obtained through official channels from the Customs and Excise Department of Hong Kong under proper si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hes with the invoices, except in a few cases wherein there are small discrepancies which have been examined in detail by the adjudicating authority. 7. We find that adjudicating authority has extensively dealt with the appellant s contention of admissibility of the export declarations and the question of discrepancies raised by the appellants. For better appreciation, the same is reproduced below:- 36 The importer has argued that department had solely relied on the extraneous documents and drawn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

19.04.96, have acknowledged that they had forwarded these declarations, which in a way, attests to the veracity of the declarations. Some declarations do show India as Country of origin but at the same time these declarations also show India as the Country of destination too. This could have been shown by a mistake. However, since all other details in the export declaration tally with the details in the Invoice, this simple technical mistake does not make significant difference. As regards the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of export of impugned goods from Hong Kong. 37 Similarly, I have also examined other discrepancies pointed out by the Importer and I observe that they are not very substantive and are of very technical nature. For example in one case it has been pointed out with reference to the Invoice no. BIL 3303440 dated 10.01.94 that the quantity mentioned in Invoice is 5,00,000 pcs. Whereas in Export declaration it is 2,50,000 pcs. However, on perusal of the relevant export declaration dated 13.01.94, it i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee while Invoice shows Martwin Electronics. They have also submitted that export declaration is not signed by the authorized person However, on perusal of the relevant export declaration it is seen that this is signed. As regards change in the name of consignee, it is observed that postal address of both the firms is same i.e. 366, Ahmed Mansion, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400007 and that Shri C.K. Zangda was looking after the business of both the firms, and therefore it was not going to make any ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny evidence to show that the value declared by them was indeed the correct transaction value of the goods imported. In this regard, it will be pertinent to point out that Shri C.K. Zangda, the proprietor of the Importer, in his statement dated 04.12.1995, had categorically admitted that no purchase order had been given to them in writing and that he had placed order(s) on phone only; that M/s Batshita international Ltd. was sending quotations for goods but no correspondence was maintained by him .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce etc. maintained by the Importer. 8. It is observed that the export declaration contains data including Exporter name, Consignee name, Departure date, Transport mode, Vessel/ Aircraft name, Port of discharge, Airway Bill No., Destination country, Destination country code, Marks and Nos., Container No., No. and kind of packages, description of goods, Country of origin, Country code, Quantity, Unit of quantity, FOB Value, Declarations, Signatory s name, Signature at designation, date etc. These .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the course of investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person under this Act, and such document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence against him or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall (a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t]. It is observed that the Export Declarations are obtained from the Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong under the cover of their letter on letter head and signature, through Commission for India (High Commission/Embassy) in Hong Kong. It is also stated by Hong Kong Customs that they have no objection for the said 25 Export declarations to be used as evidence in judicial proceedings in India. It is also seen that the Export Declarations are signed by Thomas Chan, Merchandiser and Fradu Wan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the facts are different from the case in hand. In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court noted that the documents were photocopies and did not bear the signatures of either exporter or the Custom officer. In fact, they did not have any signature whatsoever. Therefore, the authenticity of these documents is suspected and it is not possible to presume that the originals are duly signed. The Hon ble Supreme Court also noted that on one of these copies of the alleged declarations appear seal of Cu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icials in Hong Kong; that the authenticity of declaration was doubtful and the declarations were not correct reproduction of the original and that the said documents was not to be used in any legal proceedings. Further, in the said case, there were instances that other importers had imported identical goods at identical rates from the same supplier (namely M/s. Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong) during the aforesaid period and the department had accepted those rates. These evidences were not r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version