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. Ozurt Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs

2015 (11) TMI 1090 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Undervaluation of import of plastic chairs and CD holders - Revenue called for manufacturer's invoice from the importers, who could not produce the same. - Whether the Revenue’s reliance upon the printout retrieved from a CD recovered during search which relates to the export declaration made by the manufacturer while sending the goods to M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. UK, who is the supplier of the goods to the appellant, is a sufficient documentary evidence to enhance the value of the consignment - Held 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

the invoices and they are not aware of the manufacturer s price as also of the fact as to why the supplier has sold them the consignment at a reduced value even if, as per the Revenue, he has received the same at a higher value. - It is not proved on record that the supplier has procured the goods at that price shown in the said printout. In any case, it is only an export declaration made at Taiwan and cannot be adopted as a true value of the goods inasmuch as an exporter can enhance the value 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

by the Revenue to another import at Chennai Port cannot be held to be contemporaneous inasmuch as the goods are not of the same country of origin. The reference to the contemporaneous import is in respect of European origin goods whereas the goods in the present case are of Taiwan origin. As such we find no reasons to doubt the transaction value declared by the appellant. The enhancement of the same based upon the some extraneous documents is neither justified nor warranted. - Impugned order is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant imported a consignment of plastic chairs and CD holders of Taiwan origin in 1156 cartons and filed bill of entry dated 23.3.2001 declaring the value of the goods as US $ 8658.80 (assessable value of ₹ 4,14,331/-). The Bill of Entry filed by the appellant was supported by invoice dated 6.3.2001 issued M/s. UNI Pure Ltd., UNI Pure House, South Way, UK along with packing list, Bill of Lading, country of origin certificate and a sales contract for supply of the furniture by M/s. U .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sent to one Shri Naresh by M/s. Wellrun Hardware Company, Taiwan, the manufacturer of the goods. As all other particulars mentioned in the said document tallied with the imported consignment except the value, Revenue entertained a view that the value as reflected in the said document was the correct value. The said document was shipping bill for export to M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. showing the export value declaration by M/s. Wellrun Hardware, manufacturer. 2.2 Shri Ramesh Kumar Mehta, Executive of 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

contract with M/s. UNI Pure Co. Ltd. and who agreed to supply the entire consignment at US $ 8658.50. They were not aware of the manufacturer being M/s. Wellrun Hardware Company Ltd., who according to the retrieved document had supplied the goods to M/s. UNI Pure Company Ltd. with a copy to them. He deposed that the imported consignment was supported by the documents showing that they have only paid an amount of US $ 8658.80 to the supplier. He could not disclose the reason as to why the value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition of penalty and confiscation of the goods. The notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (A). Hence the present appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that Revenue strongly relied upon a computer printout seized from the CD which related to the sale of goods by the manufacturer M/s. Wellrun Hardware Company Ltd. of Taiwan to M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. based at UK. The value mentioned in the shipping bill of M/s. Wellrun Har .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. UK, who is the supplier of the goods to the appellant, is a sufficient documentary evidence to enhance the value of the consignment. Admittedly the appellant has received the goods from M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. under a written sales contract. M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. have also raised an invoice reflecting the value of the goods as US $ 8658.80. No further enquiry stand made by the Revenue either from the manufacturer or from the supplier of the goods. As such the documents relating to 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

alue even if, as per the Revenue, he has received the same at a higher value. Even otherwise we note that the document retrieved from the CD, which stands messaged to one Shri Naresh is not the document which is authentic enough to be relied upon inasmuch as the same is neither signed nor certified by any person nor does it establish beyond doubt that the manufacturer has sold the goods at a higher value to the M/s. UNI Pure Ltd., UK. It is also not established by any evidence that the said docu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uwood Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam: 2005 (186) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that enhancement of value sought on the basis of photocopies of export declaration obtained from the foreign customs, the original copies of which were not brought on record, cannot be held to be justified. It was further observed that such documents being unsigned, no presumption can be raised under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the same. Similarly in the case 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

o be a valid enhancement, in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports. 3.3 When we apply the ration of the above decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that the only evidence relied upon by the Revenue is a document retrieved from the CD found in the appellants premises. That retrieved document is addressed to one Mr. Naresh who has not been examined at all. It is not proved on record that the supplier has procured the goods at that price shown in the said printout. In an .....

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