Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sangeeta Metal (India) , Arvind K. Shah And Amulakh Shah Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhava Sheva

2015 (11) TMI 756 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rectification of mistake - Mis-declaration of Value of imported goods Adjudicating authority confirmed customs duty demand along with interest thereon apart from imposing equivalent amount of penalty, as importer grossly mis-declared value of imports Held that:- transaction values admitted in the confessional statement of the importer and the commission agent can straightway be adopted for determination of the value which escaped the assessment and for the demand of differential duty liabili .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ferential duty in respect of the 13B/Es.

Partner of the importing firm has admitted that the values shown in the export declaration are the correct values for the transaction. Therefore, no fault can be found if the assessable value is redetermined on the basis of the values declared in the export declarations and the duty liability determined accordingly. Thus the differential duty liability of ₹ 63,53,349.87 in respect of the 8 B/Es specified in Annexure B to the show cause no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d was calculated on 22.920 MT which was taken on the basis of export declaration. In this matter we are of the view that under any circumstances quantity cannot be increased as against the quantity mentioned in the bill of entry for the reason that the quantity shown in the bill of entry is the quantity which is imported and cleared form custom barrier unless until there a charge of smuggling of remaining quantity. We find that there is no material on record to show or establish that as against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e For the Respondent : Shri. A.K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This application is for rectification of mistake in this Tribunal orders No. A/1521-1523/14/CSTB/C-I dated 26/9/2014 on the following ground: (a) Export declarations relied upon is only for the goods imported by the appellants but the corresponding invoices of M/s. GLR International shows many grades and higher quantity. If due weightage is given for the difference in grades and if contemporaneous prices o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty liability would be only ₹ 84 lakhs approx. and not ₹ 1.41. crore as determined in the impugned order. (c) As there are variations in values between those given in the export declarations and the statements/computer print outs, the best method of valuation that should have been adopted is by way of contemporaneous imports as envisaged under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, adopting the lowest contemporaneous value. (d) Wrong exchange rates have been adopted for computing t .....

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 determination of duty demand taking into account the various submissions made by the appellant. 2. Shri. V.M. Doiphode, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that as per the ground taken in the application there is apparent mistake on record of the this Tribunals order dated 26/9/2014 inasmuch as this Tribunal in para 3 recorded the submission that though the export declaration is obtained in 15 cases, only in respect of 8 consignments, the same has been adopted for re-determination of the va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as against ₹ 1.41 crore as determined in the impugned order. He further submits that in respect of bill of entry no. 977218 dated 28/11/2006 inasmuch as quantity of 22.920 MT was taken as against actual quantity of 16.130 MT as shown in the bill of entry. Wrong exchange rate has been adopted and wrong quantity is taken in demanding differential duty. This has been pointed out in the submission of the appellant and the same was recorded, however no effect of this submission was given in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pted whereas the correct exchange rate at the relevant time by Notification No. 60/2006-Cus(N.T.) dated 26/5/2006 was only 46.20 thus the quantification of duty was wrongly done. It is his submission that despite submissions of this error made in the impugned order this Tribunal has not given any findings in order to correct the quantification in this regard. 3. On the other hand, Shri. A.K. Singh, Ld. Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that that all the issue 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

nts were adopted whereas 7 export consignments export declaration were not considered. On going through the relevant portion of the order, we find this issue has been recorded in this Tribunal order at para 3.4 and considering the same the detail findings was given which is reproduced below: 5.1 We have perused the computer print outs recovered from Good luck Metal Corporation, the commission agent. In respect of 13 consignments covered by 13B/ES, the actual transaction values are available purc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

poration, the Commission agent for Dai Ichi, USA, has also admitted that the data contained in the computer printouts reflect the correct transaction values in respect of the imports made by M/s. Sangeeta. These statements have not been retracted at any point of time. These are the figures that have been adopted for the purpose of determination of actual value of imports and the differential duty liability of ₹ 76,87,658.55 in Annexure A to the show cause notice. 5.2 A confessional stateme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onfession can form the sole basis for conviction. It it is retracted, it must first be tested whether confession is voluntary and trughful inculpating the accused in the commission of the crime. Confession is one of the species of admission dealt with under Section 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Section 164 of the Code. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Govindasamy Raghupathy[1998(98) ELT 50(Mad)] and the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of System & Components [2004(165) ELT 136(S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re Antwerp Customs should have been taken as the basis for determination of transaction value is not tenable for the reason the actual transaction value is available in the documents retrieved which has also been admitted by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the adoption of values reflected in the computer printouts and the confessional statements as the basis for demand of differential duty in respect of the 13B/Es. 5.3 In respect of 8 bills of entry, since no details we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter can be rejected and assessment can be made on the basis of value declared in the export declarations at the port of export. Further in his statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Sri. Arun Kalidas Shah, partner of the importing firm has admitted that the values shown in the export declaration are the correct values for the transaction. Therefore, no fault can be found if the assessable value is redetermined on the basis of the values declared in the export declarations and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n value and in whichever case such evidence were not available value was taken as per the export declaration. Therefore the issue raised by the applicant has already been considered and given detail findings as mentioned above, therefore in our considered view there is absolutely no mistake apparent in this Tribunal order on this count. Therefore, we reject the applicants prayer for rectification on the above points. 5.4 As regard other issues that the Ld. Commissioner in the order has adopted w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version