GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 552 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (1) TMI 552 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Over-valuation of rough diamonds imported from Dubai/Hong Kong - consignments were cleared at 'nil' rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 as amended. - Allegation that the said consignments were meant for laundering money and money remitted overseas against such consignments were hawala payments either to cover the differential cost of the other imports or to park money abroad for other unlawful activities.

Held that:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ities unearthed on the part of appellants. This also makes the case of the appellant strong that the value declared by them is solely for the purpose of remittance towards the import of rough diamonds.

There is no mis-declaration of the value of the rough diamonds in question - since mis-declaration of value is not established. It is not required to consider whether the mis-declaration of value would render the goods as 'prohibited goods'. - Confiscation and penalty set aside - Decide .....

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 case are as follows- 2.1 The DRI received intelligence about over-valuation of rough diamonds imported from Dubai/Hong Kong by certain parties in India stated to be working in conjunction with a syndicate based in Dubai. The intelligence indicated that most of the firms of the syndicate had establishments both at Mumbai and Surat, and on import the said consignments were cleared at 'nil' rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 as amended. The said consignment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id consignment comprised of 26 individual consignments consisting 33 packages, and consigned to different parties at Mumbai. Out of the aforesaid 26 consignments, 13 consignments (consisting of 20 packages) were already examined and cleared by the customs. The remaining 13 consignments were lying in the custody of Custodian, MMTC Ltd. The said 13 remaining consignments were detained under detention memo dated 21.5.2003 for the purpose of verification of the value of the imported rough diamonds. .....

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 filed in respect of remaining 7 consignments. Four of these consignments had arrived in the name of M/s Rainbow Expotrade Pvt. Ltd. while the rest of three in the name of M/s Raj Gems Pvt. Ltd. As nobody filed Bills of Entry for these 7 consignments, it was decided that these 7 consignments be examined. However, prior to the examination, notices for the said examination were sent to the respective importers on their known addresses on 16.6.2003. In response, only M/s. Rainbow Expotrade Pvt. L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are highly overvalued. The value ascertained was as follows:- Sr.No. Name of the importer No. of consignments Quantity in carats Import Value (in Rs.) Value ascertained by Trade Panel (GJEPC (in Rs.) 1 M/s. Rainbow Expotrade Pvt. Ltd. 05 308164 23,44,40,143.00 1,15,36,716.00 2 M/s. Raj Gems Pvt. Ltd. 05 184197.65 24,42,06,139.95 1,10,17,371.81 3 M/s. Sundaram Gems Pvt. Ltd. 01 21663.45 3,48,40,937.00 1,74,29,520.00 4 M/s. Madhur Gems Pvt. Ltd. 01 15639.15 3,58,10,508.00 1,79,14,560.00 5 M/s. A n .....

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 importers were recorded. The rough diamonds were seized immediately on 8.7.2003 on the plea that they were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Statements of various individuals were recorded. 2.5 A show-cause notice was issued after investigations proposing therein as to why the diamonds contained in 13 consignments shall not be confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anded back to the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the minutes of valuation were not signed by all the members of the expert panel of the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council and the importers were not allowed to cross examine the members of the expert panel before the case was decided. 2.8 In pursuance of this order, the adjudication was carried out de-novo. After hearing the appellants, the impugned order was passed. By the impugned order the Commissioner has held that the rough .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds imported in the name of M/s. Rainbow Expotrade Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Raj Gems Pvt. Ltd., M/s Madhur Gems Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Anuj Exports, and imposed personal penalties on the directors of these companies and proprietor of M/s. Anuj Exports. It was held that although the import of rough diamonds does not require any license and attract NIL rate of duty, their highly inflated import prices do facilitate illegal outflow of the foreign exchange which is invariably used in dubious activities and commis .....

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. LTD. Sr. No Invoice No. and date/Bill of Entry No. and date Quantity (in carats) Declared value (in Indian Value determined (in Indian Rs.) 1 SS 53/14.05 dt. 14.05.03 75352 64486632.00 1992552.00 2 SS 52/14.05 dt. 14.05.03 69323 59455056.00 1422849.60 3 SS 54/14.05 dt. 14.05.03 71748 64585792.00 5567616.00 4 ED/DXB/04/02/03 dt. 14.05.2003 86850 27944400.00 1592400.00 5 CK 116 dt. 19.05.2003 4891 27968263.00 961299.00 Total Value 234440143.00 11536716.60 (B) IMPORTER M/s. RAJ GEMS PVT. LTD. Sr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice No. & date/Bill of Entry No. and date Quantity (in carats) Declared value (in Indian Value determined (in Indian Rs.) 1 101475 dt 26.05.03 21663.45 34840937.00 17429520.00 (D) IMPORTER M/S. MADHUR GEMS PVT. LTD. Sr. NO. Invoice No. & date/Bill of Entry No. and date Quantity (in carats) Declared value (in Indian Value determined (in Indian Rs.) 1 DC-197/0503 DT. 14.05.2003 44494.67 39171675.38 1849225.95 (E) IMPORTER SHRI. RAVI CHORADIA, PROPRIETOR OF M/s. ANUJ EXPORTS Sr. NO. Invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ough diamonds with a declared value of ₹ 24,43,06,139/- (Determined value of ₹ 1,10,17,371/-) imported in the name of M.s Raj Gems Pvt. Ltd. under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iv) I order absolute confiscation of 1 consignment of rough diamonds with a declared value of ₹ 3,48,40,937/- (Determined value of ₹ 1,74,29,520/-) imported in the name of M/s Sundaram Gems Pvt. Ltd. under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I order absolute .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(vii) I impose personal penalty of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) on Shri Gauta, Chand Jain, Director , M/s Raibow Expotrade Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. (viii) I impose personal penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakhs) on Shri Navnit Jain, Director, M/s Rainbow Expotrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Madhur Gems Pvt. Ltd., under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (xi) I impose personal penalty of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Loki-is) on Shri Anil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) on Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, Director M/s Sundaram Gems Pvt Ltd. under Section 112010 the Customs Act, 1962. (xiii) I impose personal penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) on Shri Sampatraj Jain, Director, M/s Madhur Gems Pvt. Ltd., under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. (xiv) I impose personal penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) on Shri Ravi Choradia, proprietor, M/s Anuj Exports Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 196 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

members. 2.12 Then, this difference of opinion was also marked and referred to same Third Member who was to resolve the disagreement in the initial order dated 6.8.2013. When the third member was inclined to hear the matter sometime in March, 2015, a letter was filed by one of the applicants stating that he has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India praying that all the orders namely orders dated 6.8.2013 and 8.12.2014 be set aside and the appeal itself be heard afresh. 2.13 The Civi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hence these appeals before us. 3. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants namely M/s Sundaram Gems P. Ltd., M/s. Madhur Gems P. Ltd., and its Directors Shri Sampatraj Jain, Shri Uttam Jain and Shri Bhawarlal Jain, submits that in absence of any allegation that the invoices were forged/fake/fabricated or, that the importer and the supplier were related or that there was evidence of contemporary imports of identical/similar goods at prices other than the appellants' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were totally exempt from duty under Serial No. 180A of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dt. 01.03.2002. Upon the goods being detained by DRI on account of issue of valuation, the appellants took up the matter with the suppliers who offered to take back the goods in view of the dispute of valuation. There were inconsistencies in the statements of the different panel members. The learned Commissioner had wrongly observed that there was a unanimous decision of the panel members. The constitution 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

isions of this Tribunal in the case of Sahil Diamonds vs. CC -2010 (257) ELT 310 (Tri-Ahmd.) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2010 (257) A 22 (SC) was relied upon. He also relied on the decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Gems v. CC 2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC) to persuade us that where there is no evidence to show that the invoice was either fake or fabricated or that there existed relationship between the supplier and the importer or that there was any contemporary e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

GJEPC and pointed out that there are glaring inconsistencies in the versions of the members, due to which the valuation report of the said panel can not be said to be unanimous, hence such valuation report can not be accepted. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellants be allowed to re-export the rough diamonds in question. 4. Shri V.S. Nankani, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the remaining Appellants, apart from adopting the above same arguments, further submit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods and are not to clear the same for home consumption, the goods must be permitted to be re-exported to avoid civil consequences from the foreign shipper as well as the custodian of the cargo, the appellants being named as consignees. He further submits that in a similar situation in the case of Sahil Diamonds (supra), this Tribunal has allowed re-export in terms of Circular dated 23 rd June, 2003. Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and their appeals be allowed with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(209) ELT 378)] (vii) Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited vs. Commissioner [2008 (222) ELT 427] (viii) Commissioner of Customs vs. Mahalaxmi Gems [2002 (144) ELT 548 (Tri) Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the said decision reported in [2008(231) ELT 198 (SC)] (ix) Hargovind Das K. Joshi vs. Collector [1992 (61) ELT 172 (S.C.)] (x) Suraj Diamonds vs. Commissioner of Customs [2008 (86) ELT 400] (xi) Wooltex Associates vs. Commissioner of Customs [1998 (90) ELT 245 (Tri)] (xii) Sij Electronics Comp. 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

temporaneous value was available, however, in fairness the reliance was placed on the valuation given by the Panel Members of GJEPC. The value of impugned goods is highly inflated and the impugned order-in-original contains the modus operandi of the appellants. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the transaction value on the basis of the valuation given by the panel members of GJEPC. He further submits that the panel of GJEPC is an expert panel of the trade of Gem and Jewe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and are very well aware of the day-to-day international rates of all kinds of diamonds, cannot, under the circumstances be faulted. The values given by them are after all, notional international prices existing during that time which are in consonance with the principles laid down in the Section 14 of the Customs Act,1962. It was submitted that order of absolute confiscation was justified and even otherwise re-export cannot be allowed. As there is a mis-declaration of the value, the goods have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dustries vs. CC [1989 (39) ELT 634 (T)] (v) Radhey Shyam Ratanlal vs. C.C.(Adj.), Mumbai [2009(238) ELT 14 (S.C.)] (vi) Prakash Sancheti vs. CC, Ahmedabad [2013(292) ELT 273 (T)] (vii) Naveen Jain vs. CC [2001(134) ELT 32 (Del)] (viii) Sagar Impex vs. CC (Airport), Mumbai [2006 (193) ELT 289 (T)] (ix) Shree Tirupati Plastic vs. CC [1989 (41) ELT 512 (T)] (x) Malaysia Arcade Agencies vs. C.C. Cochin [2004 (173) ELT 55 (T)] (xi) Board Circular No. 53/2003-Cus dated 23/6/2003. (xii) CC (Sea), Chenn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egation of mis-declaration of value is sustainable? (b) Whether the imported rough diamonds are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962? (c) Whether the Directors are liable for penalty under the Customs Act, 1962? 6.1 In the present case, DRI seized the consignment of rough diamonds on the belief that these diamonds are highly overvalued. To ascertain the correct value of the diamonds the matter was referred to GJEPC. The expert panel of GJEPC arrived at the value of the diamonds in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tical goods in the course of international trade was ascertained or compared nor any reference was made to any international publication giving the prices of rough diamonds in the course of international trade. Other members of the expert panel Shri. Rupen Kothari and Shri. Amrish Parikh have also stated that no reference was made to any international publication for ascertaining price of identical goods in course of international trade. We observed that various inconsistencies were noticed in 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

re are also inconsistencies in the statements of members of expert panel on the very basic aspect whether all the members were present at the time when examination was carried out and when the report was being prepared. One of the member Shri. Dilip Lakhi stated that he only remember that Shri. Bakul Mehta was present and does not remember about presence of other members. Shri. Bukul Mehta also stated that he has not met any panel member for preparing the report. Contrary to that Shri. Amrish Pa .....

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 country of origin was ascertained but that is not important for arriving at the correct value. Shri. Mehul Shah stated that country of origin was verified from the invoice. Shri. Sudhir Mehta stated that country of origin makes very small difference to the value and that he found out country of origin by looking at the diamonds. Shri. Rupen Kothari has stated that country of origin makes no difference to the value and that the country of origin was not ascertained. Shri. Nilesh Shah has state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

down on rough paper and back up paper would be with the council. He stated that he had not met any panel members for preparing the report. Shri. Amrish Parikh and Shri. Mehul Shah have said that written note of the value was made by each panel member which was given to the customs. The DRI in the their letter dated 30/8/2004 mentioned that pages 41-44 in the sets of the documents provided with the show cause notice and categorically stated that no other documents such as work sheet etc. for valu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ereas valuation was carried out at 1200 Hrs on 18/6/2003 as appearing in the valuation report. This clearly shows that the valuation was not carried out in the presence of Panchas. It is also observed that despite the appellants made request for providing the written note/noting of the panel member, these notings were not provided to the appellant. We also observed the inconsistencies in the valuation report, inasmuch as the valuation report in case of Rainbow Exports, was signed by the examinin .....

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 undisputedly the diamonds in question are rough and not polished diamonds. In these inconsistencies in the GJEPC report on the valuation, the observations made by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order that there was unanimous decision of the panel members is incorrect. There are several serious inconsistencies in the version of the members of the expert panel and moreover the report was not signed by all the members of the expert panel. In light of above serious discrepancies, the valua .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ued by the Commissioner of Customs Airport which are amended from time to time and which give list of names of experts to whom reference is to be made, in the present case the panel of members has not been constituted in accordance with such standing orders. We do not find any explanation given as why in the present case the panel was not constituted in accordance with such standing orders. Therefore in defiance of the standing order the members of expert panel who examined the diamonds in the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tances and method of valuation prevailing in the case of other importers may be correct but in the present case it is established that there are glaring inconsistencies in versions of the members of the panel of GJEPC in the process of valuation. Therefore only because in other case there was no dispute, it does not mean in present case also the valuation is correct. In this context, we find that in case of Mahalakshmi Gems (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. .....

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 exporter". It was also held that there was no contemporaneous evidence to prove that the goods imported were overinvoiced. The Tribunal, without going into the question regarding the impartiality of the opinion of the two members of the trade panel, observed that they were the competitors. Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, held that the transaction value would have to be accept .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dence that the price declared in the invoice was not the correct price. 9. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. We find that the facts of the above case are similar to the facts in present case. In the present case also there is no evidence that the invoice issued by supplier are either fake or fabricated or that there exist any relationship between supplier and the importer. In the given fact Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the transaction value therefore 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

ges) and each consignment consisted of several sub-packages. The report dated 10-6-03 according to which there is no over-valuation of the goods, gives the value of all the sub-packages in each consignment. Subsequent report shows that only 4 samples were drawn from each of the six consignments. The version of all the members as regards there being six packages and number of sub-packages, while doing the valuation of said goods, differs from member to member. Some of them have stated that there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acts as narrated in the notice, thus, making the result of the second and third report not free from doubt. In any case, having already held that there was no reason to discard the first report, which was in agreement with the value declared by the appellant, we find no justifiable reason to adopt the valuation given in the second or third report. 20. - 21. We also agree with the learned advocate that the charges of mis-declaration in valuation of the goods, are required to be proved by producti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. There is also no allegation of any relationship between the appellant and foreign supplier of the goods, thus, casting any shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the value given in the invoice. KP certificate produced by the appellant also reflects the same value and there is no dispute or doubt about the correctness of the said KP certificate. In the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems v. CC, Mumbai, 2002 (144) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Mum.), Tribunal, while dealing with the identical dispute, has observed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of competition among these members and expect a member of the panel to rise above such consideration taken impartially. It is however, not necessary for us to rest our decision upon the tack of impartiality of this panel. The fact remains that the value of the goods that was declared was the transaction value. The genuineness of the invoice that the appellant produced has not been questioned. It has not been alleged that it was fabricated or fake or that any relationship between the importer .....

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 2008 (231) E.L.T. 198 (S.C.). For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant Para 8 of the said judgment "8. In the present case, the department has failed to show from any contemporaneous evidence that the invoices were either fabricated or fake or that any relationship existed between the importer and the exporter. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the transaction value has to be accepted until and unless it is shown by some contemporaneous evidence that the pri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder Section 111(m) cannot be upheld. As regards confiscation under Section 111(d), the same has been ordered on the ground that KP certificate produced by the importer do not cover the goods in question and reliance has been made on the Board's Circular No. 53/2003-Cus, dated 23-6-03. The said circular issued by the CBEC is to the effect that in terms of Para 2.2 of the export/import (EXIM) policy, as amended by Notification No. 23/2002-07, dated 26-12-07 issued by Director General of Forei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ternational certification scheme for rough diamonds entitled: "Kimberly Process Certificate Scheme" was adopted in a Ministerial meeting held at Interlaken, Switzerland, on 05th November, 2002. India is a signatory to the undertaken Declaration. The scheme has been evolved to deal with the issue of conflict diamonds which are basically rough diamonds whose trade is prohibited by the United Nations Security Council, because the proceeds of that trade are used by rebel movements and thei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, number of parcels in shipments, relevant HS code and validation of certificate by the exporting authority. It may also have additional details such as quality, characteristics of rough diamonds in the shipment etc. 22.3 In order to comply with the requirements of KPCS, each shipment of rough diamonds on import and export has to be accompanied with a KP certificate and the procedure for implementation of Scheme is stated as under in Circular No. 53/2003 Cus., dated 23-6-03 issued by CBEC New De .....

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 arrival of the consignment/parcel, the importer or his authorized representative shall present a copy of the KP certificate and other related documents, such as airway bill, invoice, packing list etc. to the GJEPC for verification and certification. The GJEPC scrutinizes the documents and if found in order, makes endorsements on the copy of the KP certificate, certifying details mentioned therein. The importer/CHA shall present the KP certificate endorsed by GJEPC along with the required impor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

___and retain the original. The authorized representative of GJEPC will collect all the original KP certificates retained by the Customs at 6.00 PM on each working day and the copy of the KP certificate (endorsed by GJEPC) which was filed with the bill of entry will be handed back to the importer/CHA." 22.4 The CBEC circular No. 53/2003 Cus., dated 23-6-03 (supra), further provides that in case of rough diamonds become liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act to any cont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

05 (Tri.-Chennai) and M/s. Jay AR Enterprises, 2007 (210) E.L.T. 459 (Tribunal) = 2007 (79) RLT 291 (CESTAT-Chennai) has held that inasmuch as import of rough diamonds were exempted from payment of duty and were not dutiable, no penalty can be imposed under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. By following the above decision of the Tribunal, we hold that no penalty is imposable upon any of the appellant. In any case, having held that the value as declared by the appellant was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve evidence. Valuation enhanced on the basis of opinion of experts cannot be held to be in accordance with settled law on the issue inasmuch as transaction value has to be first rejected by adopting suitable mode for revising the valuation of the goods under consideration. In the present case also Ld. Adjudicating authority has not adopted any suitable mode for rejecting the transaction value and straight away relied upon the GJEPC report which is not in consistence with the aforesaid judgment. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

belief and in case of exportation of goods, certify that the quality and specification of the goods as stated in those documents, are in accordance with the terms of the export contract entered into with the buyer or consignee in pursuance of which the goods are being exported and shall subscribe a declaration of the truth of such statement at the foot of such Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill or any other documents." The words "any other documents prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962& .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 to arrive at an erroneous finding that Rule 11 of FTDR Rules was violated. The KPC is not a document, such as Bill of Entry, which is prescribed under the Act. The requirement of imports of rough diamonds being accompanied by a KPC flows from Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy and it is not a document prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962. The department could not show any provision under the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes submission of KPC as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is no declaration of value in terms of Sec. 14 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. South India Television (P) Ltd., 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) observed that - "6. ………………. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ompanied with an Invoice is filed, the invoice issued by the overseas supplier of rough diamonds cannot be considered as a document prescribed under the Act. Even in a case where Bill of Entry has been filed, the value declared in the Bill of Entry is the value as has been held in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. South India Television (P) Ltd. (supra). 6.6 The Ld. Special Counsel for the respondent given much emphasis 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

ion was drawn between preparation and attempt. It was held that a preparation for committing an offence is different from attempt to commit it. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, he must be shown first to have had an int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay be proved that he intended to set fire to a haystack at the time of the purchase. Nor can he be convicted of this offence if he approaches the stack with the matches in his pocket, but if he bends down near the stack and lights a match which he extinguishes on perceiving that he is being watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to burn it. It was further held that the test for determining whether the act of the accused person constituted an attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts alre .....

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 it is interrupted by circumstances independent of his volition. Such act need not, however, be penultimate act towards the commission of crime. Considered in the light of the undisputed facts and the principles of law referred to above, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by opposite party No. 1 that the petitioners were transporting silver, being specified goods, by causing its movement towards Bombay, a specified area without being accompanied by a transport voucher as contempla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of penalty cannot be attributed to the Appellants. In any event the KPCs in question cannot be considered as non-est. The imported rough diamonds are accompanied by KPC, which was not found to be forged or fabricated. As per para 2.2 of the FTP all imports of rough diamonds have to be "accompanied by" a KPC. There is no further condition stipulate therein regarding liability of the importer in respect of correctness or otherwise of the contents of such KPC, to render it non-est. 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

dated August 4, 1947, is that no one should export any goods from this country without furnishing the declaration mentioned in s. 12(1). Admittedly the stipulated declarations in the prescribed forms have been furnished. The evidence specified have also been given. Therefore prima facie there was no contravention of s.12(1). What is said against the respondents is that the invoice price mentioned by them in the declarations which means that the concerned goods were exported without furnishing 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

of the appeal admitted there against by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its order 20.06.2013 in Civil Application no. 544 of 2011 in Appeal No. 1236 of 2011. It is seen that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Moreover, in the said decision in Prakash Sancheti(supra) the importer had confessed his participation in the process of overvaluation and had also got the KPC revised to a much lower amount, while owning up that 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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