TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made the basis. - There is a fundamental flaw in the manner of obtaining quotation in that the market enquiry was not conducted in the presence of the appellant or their authorized representative. This amounts to violation of natural justice. The department could have at least verified from two or three more sources for credible evidence. From the procedure adopted, it seems the Department was not serious in conducting investigations through a proper market enquiry. For authentic enquiries the department should have at least sought the purchase invoices and the sale invoices of M/s. Max Flex & Imaging System Pvt. Ltd. to lend credibility to their evidence. Valuation Law under Section 14 read with the Valuation Rules provide a proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (A.R) ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 17/2013/CAC/CC(G)/PKA/ICD (M) (I), dated 14.2.2013. 2. The appellant filed Bill of Entry dt. 4.6.2008 for import of Flex Sheeting Frontlit and Flex Sheeting Backlit from M/s. Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd., Taiwan declaring the price as US$ 1100 PMT and US$ 1200 PMT respectively. On examination of the goods the following was noticed - (a) Goods were found to be of Star Flex brand made in Korea as against unbranded as declared in the Bill of Entry. (b) 2052 rolls Flex were found as against the declared 2044 rolls. Doubting the declared transaction value, the department obtained a quot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court judgment holding that there must be contemporaneous evidence to reject the invoice value. i) Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television (P) Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 3 (.C.) ii) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 9 (S.C.) iii) Commissioner of Customs, Vishkhapatnam Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 641 (S.C.) He stressed the supplier of the goods was merely a Distributor. The appellant in his letter to Assistant Commissioner of Customs dt. 26.6.2008 had submitted a copy of the Sales contract with the supplier/distributor, commercial invoice of the manufacturer from Korea to their supplier which shows the invoice values to be US$ 1100 and US$ 1200 PMT respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the department which has not been discharged while rejecting invoice values. 3.2. Ld. Counsel said that statement alone cannot be relied for enhancement of value. He relied on Tribunal judgment in the case of Orient Enterprises, New Delhi Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin 1986 (23) ELT 507 (Tribunal). He mentioned that the department refused cross-examination of the company which gave the quotation. 4. Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the adjudication order. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made. It is indeed surprising that the whole case has been made on the basis of one quotation. The value has been determined by proceeding sequentially through the Valuation Rules. No contemporaneous d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown to establish that the goods in the quotation and the sample are identical in brand, country of origin, specifications, quantities etc. It is for this reason that the appellant sought cross-examination of the Director of M/s. Max Flex Imaging System Pvt. Ltd. but the same was denied unjustifiably. Commissioner has brushed away this plea by relying on judgments which are unrelated to the facts in this case. He has missed the crucial point that cross-examination of Max Flex was sought and not of Sanjay Agarwal. The Ld. Advocate has correctly relied on judgments referred to in para 3 above. 5.1. The appellant submitted sales invoices in respect of goods imported by them but these documents were not considered appropriately and no cog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oor prices should be fixed if there are no other imports. Transaction value cannot be rejected on basis of a quotation which gives domestic retail sale price. If this were to be accepted, it would cause unimaginable distortion in interpreting the Valuation Law. 7. The only other evidence on the basis of which undervaluation is sought to be established is the statement of the Proprietor. We find that the statement was also retracted in August 2008 but the department did not issue any rebuttal on the retraction. It has been held by the Tribunal that although the statements under Section 108 are admissible in evidence, their evidentiary value has to be gauged in the circumstances of the case as held in Orient Enterprises Vs. Collector of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
