9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Customs was USD 31679 for 9600 Sq. Meter whereas the invoice value declared before Indian Custom was USD 20000 for 10000.4 SQM. On conversion, unit value declared before the Indonesian Customs works out at USD 3.3. SQM, in comparison with value declared before Indian Custom was USD 2.0 SQM. Thus, it appeared that the appellant has deliberately mis-declared the goods in order to evade payment of appropriate Customs duty for the imported consignment. 3. It is seen from import database that same items covered under Bills of Entry No. 2986679 dated 17.3.2011 and 3725162 dated 7.6.2011 were imported from the same supplier at unit price 3.4 per SQM. Also, from the import data base it was gathered that M/s S. Krishna & Co. imported 13 more consignments of the same item covered under Bills of Entry No. (i) 4278099 dated 5.8.2011, (ii) 4278100 dated 5.8.2011 (iii) 4446256 dated 24.8.2011 (iv) 4446258 dated 24.8.2011, (v) 4491486 dated 29.8.2011, (vi) 4491413 dated 29.8.2011, (vii) 4491415 dated 29.8.2011, (viii) 5388521 dated 6.12.2011 (ix) 5419992 dated 9.12.2011, (x) 5569916 dated 26.12.2011, (xi) 5686114 dated 9.1.2012 (xii) 5818715 dated 24.1.2012 and (xiii) 6242040 dated 13.3.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic of Indonesia, is a document received under Section 139 of Customs Act and the same is admissible evidence, Section 139 talks about raising presumption of the documents unless contrary is proved. As the nature of imported goods and quantity is not matching with the information furnished by the Indonesian Customs, general presumption cannot be raised. Ld. Advocate further submits that the impugned goods, being polypropylene carpet with jute backing depends upon the quality of the goods. It is essential for ascertaining the correct value for the imported carpet first one will have to ascertain the quality of the carpet. Unless the quality of the impugned goods i.e. carpet is examined vis-a-vis the goods for which information has been sent by Indonesian Custom the same Indian Custom transaction value for the imported consignment cannot be rejected by the department. In this case, there is no other corroboration or any other evidence such as appellant having paid an amount over and above the invoice value to the Indonesian exporter, the department has no case of mis-declaration. To this effect, the ld. Advocate relied upon the Hon'ble Tribunal's decision in the case of CC, Amritsar V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and therefore, the show cause notice under Section 28 was required to be issued before 12.3.2013. However, the show cause notice has been issued on 13.10.2013 which was received by the appellant on 25.10.2013. Thereafter, a corrigendum to the show cause notice was issued by the department on 29.11.2013 which was received later. Thus, the entire demand is time-barred under Section 28 of the Act. 10. It is on record that the goods have been confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The department has not been above to prove any mis-declaration by the appellant. As there is no evidence to suggest that any extra money was paid to the supplier. In this regard, the ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sony Impex Vs. CC - 2006 (202) ELT 486 (Tri.-Kol.). 11. The ld. Advocate also contested the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act is not sustainable. Ld. Advocate also submits that price declared to the Customs Authority of exporting country is of no consequence to that of Indian Customs. It is quite possible that the exporter in order to claim extra benefit, which is not uncommon, might have inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified as to why there is a difference in classification as well as in the quantity of the consignment imported. Merely on this basis, the valuation for the imported carpet cannot be enhanced. The valuation of consignment is required to be done as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, read with the Customs Valuation Rules. Further, we have perused the decision in case of CC, Amritsar Vs. Kalsi Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. filed in the paper book in appeal copy which is relevant to the facts of the case and the operative portion of the order is as under: "7. On the question of manner of receiving documents from Customs formations of a foreign country, through diplomatic channel by the Indian investigators, the procedure cannot be imposed by Indian Custom authorities. The document received through diplomatic channel has been duly countersigned by the officials of the assisting foreign country. Therefore, we have no reasons to doubt, the documents relied upon by the Custom department. As per the invoice forwarded by the First Secretary, Belgium the value of the consignment declared by the exporter appears to be 19,000 Euros. The price declared by the respondent to the Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, it cannot be concluded that the goods are same or similar quality for want of specific information. Moreover, in all the cases the assessment has already been finalised and the consignment has been cleared. Reopening of such cases without the proper identification of the goods in respect of quantity and quality will be contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard we refer to the following case laws : i) Puja International Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi - 1995 (76) ELT 69 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that : Valuation (Customs) - Imports made by another firm relied on by department not in respect of similar goods and hence, not contemporaneous evidence - Proforma invoice confirming price of invoice value to be accepted as a whole and not in part - Value of goods to be determined based on invoice value in view of discrepancy with reference to issuance of quotation from supplier and in absence of detailed enquiry brought on record by department - Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962." In the present case, there is an information received from the overseas sources which are not tallying with respect to classification of the goods and even for the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
