TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. The department is directed to release the consignment at declared price within a fortnight from the receipt of this order - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50398, 50399 of 2019 - Final Order No. 50697-50698/2019 - Dated:- 17-5-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Navneet Panwar, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Vivek Pandey, DR - for the respondent ORDER Per Bijay Kumar : These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common Order-in- Appeal dated 30.11.2018 (for short, impugned order), wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order of lower adjudicating authority, being Order-in-Original No. 51/2018 dated 05/2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Neena International (for short, main appellant) has filed Bill of Entry No. 3627826 dated 16.10.2017 (for short, the said B/E) in respect of Container No. TGBU5349304 (for short, the Container). This Bill of Entry was filed for the clearance of consignment c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted on 10.11.2007 in presence of Shri inderjeet for redetermination of value of imported goods viz. Frying pan, Frying Pan (Bowl Shaped) and Pizza Pan of Sri and Sam brand. During the market survey unit price of the goods could not be ascertained due to non-availability of identical or similar goods in India. The sample of PS Digital analogue Printing Plates (CTCP) were sent for testing of composition and nature to M/s Don Bosco Technical Institute which in its report vide letter dated 24.11.2017 found that the goods imported were as per the declaration. During the investigation summons were also issued to M/s Jagdamba Cutlery Pvt. Ltd. for tendering their statement as they were the person who had placed the order on the appellant for supply of these goods. During the investigation M/s Jagdamba International produced invoice No. NI/GST-068 dated 9.10.2017 in which the following purchase price were indicated : Frying Pan - ₹ 150 Frying Pan (bowl shape - ₹ 200 Pizza Pan - ₹ 250 (with IGST extra) After purchasing the product from the appellant, the goods were packed in corrugated box under the name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the fraudulent or manipulated Commercial Invoice under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I order for acceptance of True transaction value amounting to USD 1,29,573/- or ₹ 85,45,358/- in respect of goods covered under said Bill of Entry, as per Original/True Commercial Invoice as true transaction value (C F) under Rule 3 of CVR, 2007 read Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to adjustments of proviso to Rule 10(2)(b) of said Rules. I order for re-assessment of the impugned Goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3627826 dated 16.10.2017 under Section 17(4) of the Act ibid with consequential duty and interest, if any. (iii) I confirm total duty liability of impugned goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3627826 dated 16.10.2017 as ₹ 24,49,613/- under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since the importer has already paid the self-assessed duty of ₹ 10,82,621/-, I confirm the differential duty of ₹ 13,66,992 (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Hong Kong the exporter of the consignment in question. The appellant submitted copy of same to the SIIB and agreed to pay differential duty on the basis of procurement price of overseas supplier under the compelling circumstances as the goods were held up and the appellants were under tremendous pressure from the overseas supplier as well as by the Indian buyer. In view of above, the appellant agreed to pay the differential duty. Appellant was also under the bona fide belief that the brand name Shri Sam is not of any international repute or belongs to any Indian and hence the appellant declared the subject goods as unbranded one while filing the Bill of Entry on the basis of description provided by the overseas buyer. It is also submitted that the appellant have also imported the similar items in past at much lower price and those consignments were cleared by the Customs at the declared price. As far as the discrepancy in the quantity for the described imported the appellant were not very clear about the units and sets and on knowing the same, after 100% examination, agreed to pay the duty on the excess quantity. 3.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was reflected in 2nd/3rd set of invoice and agreed to pay duty accordingly. Not only that the appellant deposited differential duty in full as per purported invoice so as to ensure early release of the subject goods on the assurance of the departmental officer but no action was taken for release of the goods. Learned Advocate further submits that no doubt respondent has agreed to the enhanced price based on his inculpatory statements but that the statement was extracted from the appellant under pressure and false assurance. The appellant agreed to a proposal of the investigating officers as to avoid detention and demurrage and to meet the obligation of Indian buyers. In view of above, the learned Advocate submits that the impugned order is against the Customs Act and Customs Valuation rule and needs to be set aside in appeal. 4. Learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the respondent reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the submissions made by both the sides and also perused the appeal record. 6. The issue to be determined in this case as to which is correct value at which the goods imported wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. On the other hand, the appellant categorically states that they have not made any payment over and above the first invoice value i.e USD 48016.38. Regarding the second invoice having the value of USD 75,175,28 which was retrieved from the E. Mail of the appellant it is submitted that the same was obtained in order to get quick clearance from the customs as desired by the Investigating Officer, but stressed that they have not paid over and above the price of USD 48016.38. The appellant has not accepted the value of the assessment as per the third invoice at USD 129573.28, which is clearly manifested from the endorsement made on the said invoice and produced as above. This cannot be said to be their voluntary acceptance of price for the imported consignment. The valuation of the imported goods has to be done as per Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Custom Valuation Rules, 2007, which has not been followed in this case. Investigation has been done in an unprofessional manner and the prices has been arbitrarily enhanced by the Customs Officer which has not been rectified in the impugned order in spite of various submissions made by the appellant. The Department has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
