TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representative for the appellant None for the respondent This appeal is filed by Revenue against the impugned order-in-original dated 22.10.2018. ORDER This appeal is filed by Revenue against the impugned order-in-original dated 22.10.2018. 2. As notice could not be served on the respondent in the ordinary course, upon direction of this Tribunal dated 04.07.2019. Notice has been served by affixing vide panchnama dated 18.09.2019 at the known address of the respondent, as per the report received from the Deputy Director (CI), DRI, New Delhi. Attempt was also made to serve notice by e-mail dated 09.09.2019 by Revenue to the address on record of the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for further investigation. One representative samples each was handed over to Shri Jitendra Purohit, Importer. As per the test report received from CRCL and the invoice submitted by Shri Chhagan Raj Purohit revealed that several rolls of fabrics were made entirely of polyester and viscose yarns, which indicated mis-declaration in description of the goods that the declared in the bill of entry. 5. Statement of Shri Chhagan Raj Purohit, de facto importer was recorded on 25.06.2013, who inter alia admitted the possibility of the mis-declaration. The actual commercial invoice No. 232013A dated 10.06.2013 issued in the name of M/s Saraswati Impex pertaining to bill of entry No. 2404237 was submitted by Shri Chhagan Raj Purohit as per which qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared the description as well as value imported by them from China, which is evident on the basis of panchnama, test report and also the evidences received from Overseas Customs Administration. (ii) M/s Saraswati Impex deposited differential amount of ₹ 35 lakhs voluntarily as regards mis-declaration found in the bill of entry No. 2404237, Container No. MSKU9987950. (iii) Inspite of ample opportunities the respondent did not submit supporting documents like manufacturing invoice, contract, indicating dubious nature of declaration made. (iv) Shri Ashok Sharma, Director of CHA company M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd., stated that they have filed the bill of entry as per the documents provided by the importer. It also appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate the amount of ₹ 35 lakhs deposited during investigation alongwith proposal to appropriate the Bank Guarantee of ₹ 5 lakhs submitted for provisional release. 10. Similarly, M/s Rajhans Export were required to show cause as to why not the assessable value of ₹ 2,90,85,000/- in respect of 13 import consignments as detailed in chart B of the show cause notice, be not rejected and re-valued at ₹ 11,12,20,815/- under Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 with proposal for confiscation and demand of differential duty of ₹ 2,54,30,137/-, with proposal to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Personal penalty was also proposed under Section 114AA of the Act on Shri Chhagan Raj Purohit and Shri Jitender Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent made out against them. Accordingly, they prayed for dropping the show cause notice. 13. Shri Chhagan Raj Purohit, the owner of M/s Rajhans Export and defacto owner of M/s Saraswati Impex vide letter dated 08.02.2016 and 29.03.2016 requested for supply of RUDs through speed post. The documents were despatched by Revenue vide speed post vide letter dated 23.01.2018. Opportunity of personal hearing was fixed on 15.03.2018 and 16.04.2018 but no one appeared. It is further observed in para 33.2 of the impugned order that the notices for personal hearing were received back undelivered with the postal remark not known and left . All the notices for personal hearing was also pasted on the notice board in the office of the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
