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 Sundaram Gems Pvt Ltd, Shri Sampatraj Jain, Shri Navnit Jain, Shri Nitin Aminchand Shah, Shri Uttamchand Jain, Shri Anil Bhawarlal Jain, Shri Bhawarlal M. Jain, M/s Raj Gems Pvt Ltd, Shri Ravi Choradia, Shri Gautam Chand Jain, M/s Rainbow Expotrade Pvt Ltd, M/s Madhur Gems Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (CSI, Airport) , Mumbai

2016 (1) TMI 552 - CESTAT MUMBAI

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:- Initially in the show cause notice the D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 - Decided in favor of appellants. - Appeal No. C/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eived 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 consignments were meant for laundering money and mon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. 2.3 Out of these 13 consignments, bills 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

nments. 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. Ltd., had informed the DRI, that they were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned 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 nuj Exports 01 44494.67 3,97,71,675.38 18, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

monds 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 appellants. 2.6 The show cause notice was adj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 diamonds imported by the Appellants were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpotrade 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 commission of international crimes which includ .....

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 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. NO. Invoice No. & date/Bill of Entr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 No. & date/Bill of Entry No. and dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 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 confiscation of 1 consignment of rough di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 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 Jain, Director, M/s Raj Gems Pvt. Ltd., .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rlal 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, 1962." 2.9 Aggrieved by the same, these .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pinion 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 Civil Appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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' price, there is no ground for rejecting 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

l 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 panel and the qualifications of the pane .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hil 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 evidence, the invoice price cannot be reje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing 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 submits that the appellants have neither claime .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome 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 consequential relief. On behalf of the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rts 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. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commission of Customs, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 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 Jewellery Industries and they are having vast .....

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 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 become prohibited. Hence they are liable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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), Chennai -I, Vs. Baburam Premchand [2015(315) 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

stainable? (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 question which as compared to the declare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l 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 the cross examination of the members of 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

ents 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 Parikh has stated that he consulted other 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

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 stated that they asked the country of origin b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld 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 valuation has been received from GJEPC Mumbai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs 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 examining officer and two AOs and another report .....

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 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 valuation report given by the panel of GJEPC c .....

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 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 present case are held to be not qualified .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Operation portion of the order is reprodu .....

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 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 accepted until and unless it is shown by some c .....

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 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 above decision is squarely applicable to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

veral 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 were no sub-packages and some of them hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing 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 production of reliable and affirmative evidence. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ationship 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 that in the absence of any cogent evidenc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 and the exporter. Applying the ratio of 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

r 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 price declared in the invoice was not the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Foreign Trade, no import/export of rough diamo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h 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 their allies to finance conflicts aimed at un .....

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 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 Delhi: Imports : "The imported consign .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 import documents while filing the Bill of Entr .....

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 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 contravention, they should be absolutely conf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ises, 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 correct value, imposition of penalties up .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sis 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. 6.4 The Commissioner held that Rule 11 of .....

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, 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" refers only to the documents to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

62 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 a declaration by the importer. Moreover, .....

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 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 in the Bill of Entry is the value referr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voice 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 that the Appellants made application to GJ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

empt. 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 intention to commit the offence, and secondl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 already done are such that if the offender ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dependent 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 contemplated in Section 11-K. Therefore, movement .....

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 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. There is no dispute in the instant case re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uld 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 the declarations required by s. 12(1). It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 original KPC was filed inadvertently. 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

 

 

 

 

 

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