9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises, from the port of Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4 and 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of the imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and re-determine the same as Rs. 1,26,55,804/-, under Section 14 of the Act & Rule 8 of the Rules ibid. ii) I confiscate the imported artificial flowers having actual re-determined CIF value of Rs. 1,26,55,804/- under Section 111(d) & (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the same being not available for confiscation. I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. iii) I order to confirm the demand of Rs. 30,24,923/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by invoking the proviso to the Section 28(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Determination of Prices of the Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and re-determine the same as Rs. 51,63,000/- under Section 14 of the act & Rule 8 of the Rules ibid. ii) I order to confiscate the imported artificial flowers having actual re-determined CIF value of Rs. 51,63,000/- under Section 111(d) & (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the same being not available for confiscation, I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. iii) I order to confirm the demand of Rs. 18,54,113/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by invoking the proviso to the Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and order M/s Rudra Enterprises to pay the differential Customs duty amounting to Rs. 18,54,113/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importing firms were found to be run jointly by three persons namely, Himanshu Gupta, Sudhanshu Gupta and Deepak Aggarwal. Investigations conducted in this regard had conclusively proved that the said four importers wee also grossly undervaluing their imports of artificial flowers from China i.e. similar goods being imported from same country of origin. All the said three persons admitted in their statements of having undervalued their imports upto 70% of the actual value. The original invoices of Chinese suppliers of artificial flowers, retrieved during the examination of the CPU resumed from the premises of above said four firms revealed that such imported artificial flowers actually carried much higher value as compared to the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In its appeal papers the appellant has essentially contended that: (a) the show cause notice was issued by D.R.I. which was not the proper authority for issuing the show cause notice and therefore the impugned order is a nullity. (b) comparison of the value of contemporaneous import was untenables because it was done without regard to the quality and quantity. (c) the invoices used for comparing the value were of the period 2005 to 2006 whereas its imports were during the period 2003 to 2006. (d) artificial flowers imported by it were out of stock lot and therefore the value could not be compared with the value of imports of artificial flowers by other importers. Further some of the suppliers were differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar to the goods imported by the other importers mentioned earlier the value of which was used for comparison and valuation in as much as the similar goods are defined in rule 2 (f) of the said rules is under. 2(f) "similar goods" means imported goods - (i) which although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued having regard to the quality, reputation and the existence of trade mark; (ii) produced in the country in which the goods being valued were produced; and (iii) produced by the same person who produced the goods being valued, or where no such goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the contention that the invoices used for comparison were the period 2005 and 2006 while the imports of the appellant took place over the period of 2003 to 2006, it is pertinent to mention that the price of the goods in June 2005 as per the evidence recovered was US$6.11/kilogram, it came down to US$5.18/kilogram in July 2006 and then to US dollars 4.08/kilogram in August 2006. It shows that the price of the impugned goods has been showing an inexorable declining trend and therefore adopting the price of US dollar 4.08/kilogram which was the lowest and the latest available in a declining trend in no way could/ would cause prejudice to the appellant. As regards the contention that the comparison can be made only when the goods impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
