9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the value of design, drawings and technical information was not included in the assessable value of the imported goods. The Bills of Entry covering mould inserts were filed during the period 16.10.1989 to 29.4.1991, the lone Bill of Entry covering head drills was filed on 23.11.1991 and the Bills of Entry covering injection moulds were filed during November 1993 to October 1994. After conducting investigations with regard to the valuation of the goods, the department issued a show-cause notice dated 6.5.1998 to the assessee by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of alleged suppression of facts. By the time however differential duty had been paid by the party during the course of investigations [13.8.1993], a fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993 of Shri S. Rajagopal, Deputy Manager (Imports & Exports) of M/s. PRICOL, wherein he had stated that he had been attending to processing of indents, placing of orders, evolving modalities in terms of purchase in consultation with respective department etc., that as per the indent for moulds received from R&D Department, purchase orders were placed for import of the moulds, that he had suggested as to for what value and in what manner invoices had to be raised on M/s. PRICOL by the overseas supplier, that letters of credit were opened accordingly, that as per his instructions the supplier raised separate invoice for design, drawing and technical information for a total value of Singapore $ 70,020 by apportioning the purchase order v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question. The relevant allegation in the show-cause notice is that they segregated the value of design, drawings and technical information deliberately with intent to evade payment of correct amount of duty. It was precisely this factum of segregation which was disclosed to the department by the party through Shri Rajagopal's statement. On these facts, there was no suppression whatsoever laid along with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority ought to have applied its mind to these facts in the context of determining as to whether the extended period of limitation was invocable against the assessee on these facts. In any case, we are satisfied that the extended period of limitation was not invocable for demanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the importer thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation. It was on this basis, learned Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh on the CHA under the same provision (Section 112 of the Customs Act). Hereagain, the main plan for challenge is Shri Rajagopal's statement, wherein he had stated that the CHA had acted only on M/s. PRICOL's instruction in the matter. We have also come across a statement of Shri Gopalan, Executive of M/s. Visa Exim Corporation [CHA]. In this statement, the CHA also stated that they had only followed the instructions of M/s. PRICOL and that they were not aware of the negotiations between M/s. PRICOL and the supplier in relation to the import of moulds. What learned Commissioner found is that the CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
