TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ungo admitted the fact about misdeclaration of the goods. He also admitted that supplier has described the goods at his instance in the manner they have been declared. He also stopped the further investigations in the matter as he waived the requirement of Show Cause Notice and sought the adjudication of the case after grant of personal hearing by the adjudicating authority. At the time of investigations i.e. examination of the goods or during the time when the statement of Shri Kanungo was being recorded, not even a single word in respect of Mill Test Certificate etc was stated. Further the Mill Test Certificates produced are the certificates not issued by the supplier to them, but are from certain manufacturing facility located in Belg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against order in appeal No 96(Gr. IV)/2013 JNCH, IMP-89 dated 08.02.2013 of Commissioner Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order in Original F No S/26- Misc-311/2011 Gr IV. JNCH dated 09.08.2012. 1.2 Additional Commissioner Customs Appraising Group IV, JNCH has by his order held as follows: 13 I reject declared value of goods (16.626 MTs of Stainless Steel Sheets) under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and order to re-determine at rate US$ 3258 PMT (CIF) based on contemporary import price, under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods declared as Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Secondary/ defective sheets were prime goods, having weight 16.63 MTs ii. Goods declared as Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Secondary/ defective sheets cutting pieces Grade 304 (width 2000 mm/ 2003 mm) were having width of 1002 mm, having weight 1.232 MTs. iii. Goods declared as Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Secondary/ defective sheets cutting pieces Grade 304 (width 1219 mm) were as declared, having weight .702 MTs. 2.3 Thus the goods were found to be misdeclared with respect to description with an intention to undervalue the same and also to avoid payment of Anti Dumping Duty as per Notification No 104/2011. 2.4 Statement of Shri Bharat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... list and bill of lading sent by the supplier along with the test reports sent by Aperam. The goods were not examined as per the Standing Order dated 61/2009 dated 21.02.2009. As per this standing order in view of the fact that the duty structure, of Hot/ Cold Rolled Steel Sheets, the Prime Steel products is 18.62% whereas the duty structure for Seconds/ Defective is 24.42%. Hence the standing order cautioned against the defectives as prime quality to avail the benefit of lower rate of duty. The value declared by them is the actual price paid by them to their supplier and hence their cannot be justification for enhancing the value without adequate evidences to reject the transaction value. As had been held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded in the order in original and order in appeal, stated that the- The appellants have themselves admitted the fact about misdeclaration of the goods as alleged, and have agreed to the examination conducted. The Mill test certificates subsequently produced by the appellants were never produced at the time of examination or adjudication. The Director of the company in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, specifically agreed to misdeclaration, and also admitted the goods were mis-declared by the supplier as per his instructions. The Director had waived of the show cause notice and asked for the adjudication directly after hearing him. Having don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further the Mill Test Certificates produced are the certificates not issued by the supplier to them, but are from certain manufacturing facility located in Belgium to the suppliers of good. There is nothing on record to co-relate the same with the goods imported as these were not produced with the import documentation nor find any mention on the said documents. Even Shri Kanungo has in his statement referred to the existence of any such Mill Test Certificates. Hence we do not find any substance in the submissions of the appellants in this respect specifically when mis-declaration of the goods has been admitted by them. Hon ble Supreme Court has in case of Surjit Singh Chabbra [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] held that confiscation made by the pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
