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

2016 (3) TMI 515 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (3) TMI 515 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Misdeclaration of value and misdescription of goods - Suppression of the brand name/length of the goods - Imported goods were wiretek brand cables and connectors but declared as cables and connectors - Held that: as a voluntary statement was made by the proprietor accepting the non declaration of actual specification with a view to pay lesser amount of duty and it was only under his instructions that the supplier has not given any specifications in the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a Bill of Entry No.518662 dated. 08-08-2002, which consisted of cables and connectors. The said bill was assessed on second check under DEPB scheme after accepting the declared value. Later, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, were in receipt of intelligence that the respondent had filed the said bill of entry by misdeclaring the goods in terms of the required specifications and their description. On examination it was found that the imported goods were wiretek bran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny specifications in the import documents with a view to pay lesser duty. The duty of ₹ 5,06,222/- including the duty amount of ₹ 98,184/- was discharged by the respondent. 2. A show cause was issued to the proprietor Shri Dinesh D. Bajaj as to why, (i) the values declared in respect of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 518662/8.8.03 should not be rejected; (ii) the total assessable value, should not be determined as ₹ 9,96,496/- under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 9,96,496/-(CIF) should not be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (vi) a penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In response to the said notice, the proprietor had denied the allegations in the show cause notice. The allegation that the respondent had filed Bill of Entry by misdeclaring/not declaring the full description and other required specifications was emphatically denied. The further allegation that there has been 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

es would not amount to misdeclaration/non-declaration; that there was no special relationship, that the proposal to adopt Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, to enhance the value was unsustainable. It was also contended that the goods were not liable for confiscation nor was penalty imposable in the said case. 3. After affording an opportunity of hearing, the adjudicating authority held that during the course of investigations, the proprietor had categorically accepted that he had not 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

and wiretek brand cables. In this subject case also Shri Dinesh D. Bajaj agreed for the enhancement without any protest and paid the differential duty. In his various statements also he stated that he only asked the supplier not to declare the brand, model, etc., with a view to pay lesser duty. Again in this case, a fair opportunity was given to him to come out with his own value to be paid to the overseas supplier and the same was accepted by the investigating agency. Consequently, the adjudica .....

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 the Order-in-Original an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The authority had framed the following two issues to be decided: a) Status of statement which was used as a basis for rejecting the declared value and determining the value. b) The methodology of valuation The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the respondent herein had sought to retract his earlier statement in their reply to the show cause notice and during the personal hearing. The case of Vikas Spinners Vs CC 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reliance was placed on the Tribunal ruling in the case of Nina Chaka Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, New Delhi 2004(163) ELT 464 and had consequently set aside the Order-in-Original. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the Department had filed the instant appeal on the following grounds: a. That the goods were declared by their generic descriptions only without any brand name, specifications and other details. The proprietor of the importing firm in his voluntary statement dated 20.08.2003, 23.08.2003 and .....

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 has some sanctity and the burden is on the Department to collect evidence to show that the invoice value is not genuine or below ordinary price in International Trade at the time and place of import cannot be applied to cases of import where the description is substantially inadequate, incomplete or erroneous and in such cases, the question of accepting transaction value does not arise. The Tribunal in the above case further indicated that the Bill of Entry must refer to description 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

here the goods are not inspected and checked may mislead customs officers. e. That the declared value is not acceptable on account of non-disclosure of the brand and specifications by the importer and hence there is only the question of finding out the ordinary price in International Trade at the time and place of import, for which any reasonably reliable method can be followed. And for the above stated reasons, it was prayed that the O-in-A may be set aside and the original authority s order 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

goods were also ascertained which are quoted in the Order-in-Original. It was further ascertained that there was a comparison with the market values of similar goods and the value declared by the respondent herein was on the lesser side. We find that there has been a voluntary statement in which the prop had accepted that he had not declared the actual specifications with a view to pay lesser amount of duty and it was only under his instructions that the supplier had not given any specification .....

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