9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners Shri V.K. Gupata and Shri Suresh Gupta. 2. The appellant-assessee had imported 320 MT of what it declared to be DEHP, but filed Bill of Entry for only 80 MT thereof. The goods were allowed clearance after provisional assessment with the condition that the appellant would abide by the decision of the adjudicating authority in respect of the Show Cause Notice issued by Preventive Commissionerate, New Delhi under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against the appellant was that it had mis-declared Di-Octyl Pthalate (DOP) as DEHP and thereby undervalued the goods and evaded the impugned amount of duty. The primary adjudicating authority, after considering the matter essentially concluded as under:- ''19.12 From t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SCN. 19.13 From the above. I found that the department is able to discharge its onus to classify the goods correctly as DOP and do the valuation correctly. Hence, none of the case laws submitted in the defense of the party regarding onus of classification needs to be discussed. The argument that the party was not bound to disclose all the synonymous of the goods, under import, also does not hold much water as proper declaration of synonymous would have led the party to pay higher rate of duty. This shows that there is a conscious effort on the part of the party to mis-declare by not declaring the synonyms and avail payment of lesser duty." (emphasis added) Having thus concluded he passed the impugned order confirming the aforesaid dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to a finding that DEHP and DOP are the same product and therefore the declared assessable in the Bill of Entry is liable to be rejected. We find this argument rather untenable in-as-much-as even if DEHP and DOP are the same product in the opinion of the adjudicating authority, it does not follow therefrom that the appellant had mis-declared the goods as DEHP in place of DOP and if there is no mis-declaration, then the very ground for rejecting the transaction value disappears. To hold the appellant guilty of mis-declaration on the ground that it did not mention in the Bill of Entry all the synomys of the impugned goods is completely devoid of logic, reason, rationale and legal basis. There is no requirement under Customs law that all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as under:- "13. The evidences produced by Revenue can at best create a doubt but cannot prove a case of undervaluation because of three main reasons. Firstly, the case is made about quality of goods which are already cleared and there are no samples of goods available to prove or disprove the rival submissions about quality. Secondly, no investigations are carried out about the claim that the goods in question were in fact sold at low prices, corresponding to the import prices, to end users. Thirdly, there is no proof of remittance of any additional amount by the importer to the supplier abroad." 6. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we do not find the impugned order sustainable and therefore the same is set aside and the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
