9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 15-11-2014 4,086/- (i) 4,086/-u/s114A (ii) 1,000/-u/s114AA M/s. Salwan Papers Pvt Ltd (SPPL) S.No. Imports through Period of duty demand Duty demanded (in Rs) Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. Mundra Port 29-08-2014to11-05-2017 42,89,772/- (i) 42,89,772/-u/s114A (ii)10,00,000/-u/s114AA 2. ICD, TKD, New Delhi. 11-11-2014to22-11-2014 19,41,375/- (iii)19,41,375/-u/s114A (iv)4,50,000/-u/s114AA M/s. Salwan International Papers Pvt Ltd (SIPPL) S.No. Imports through Period of duty demand Duty demanded (inRs) Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. Mundra Port 14-11-2014to08-12-2014 23,54,921/- (i) 23,54,921/-u/s114A (ii)5,00,000/-u/s114AA Shri Prakash Chand Garg, Director NPT S.No. Imports through Penalty imposed (inRs.) 1. Mundra Port (i)15,00,000/-u/s112(a) (ii)10,00,000/-u/s114AA 2. ICD,TKD, NewDelhi (i)1,25,000/-u/s112(a) (ii)75,000/-u/s114AA 3. Chennai Sea Port (i) 5,000u/s112(a) (ii) 1,000u/s114AA Shri Ashish Garg, Director SPPL & SIPPL S.No. Imports through Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. Mundra Port (i) 2,00,000/-u/s114AA 2. ICD,TKD, NewDelhi (i) 2,00,000/-u/s112(a) (ii) 1,50,000/-u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 set aside the Order-In-Original dated 9.2.2017 and held in there was no clear and cogent evidence to reject the transaction value for the purpose of assessment and while doing so he relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court. 2.5 A letter dated 31.1.2018 was received from Second Secretary (Trade) Embassy of India, Brussels to DRI, Bangalore containing 21 pages which included a covering letter from Federal Public Service Finance, General Administration of Customs and Excise, Administration of Inquiry and Investigation Central Component dated 19.1.2018 to Embassy of India certain export declaration of the supplier to NPT and invoices of higher value. (Procured documents) 2.6 Three statements from Shri Prakash Chand Garg were recorded during the investigations which are dated 23.1.2015, 24.4.2018 and 8.8.2018. In his first statement dated 23.1.2015 wherein he was interalia, asked why "Stock lot of coated/uncoated paper in rolls in mix sizes" was declared at Mundra ranging from $250 to $436PMT whereas for the identical/similar items imported through the port of Chennai, the price declared per metric ton ranges from$510to $ 600 to which he stated that the goods being impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 43 consignments imported from M/s. KorCo AB, Sweden by M/s NPT during the period February,2014 to June,2017 and differential duty was demanded as per the chart extracted hereinabove. It was alleged that M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong was one of major suppliers of goods to M/s NPT. Shri Prakash Chand Gargwas the Director of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd and the said M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd was the major supplier of stock lot of coated/un-coated paper to M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL. It was alleged that on further analysis of the verification report it was revealed that other shareholders of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. are Shri Ashish Garg, Shri Vikash Khatuwala and M/s NPT Overseas Pvt Ltd ( Earlier M/s Hanuman Food Grains Pvt Ltd). It is seen from the database available with the Company Master Data tab from Ministry of Corporate Affairs website that Mr. Vijay Garg who is the Director of M/s SIPPL and M/s SPPL is also the Director of M/s NPT Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it is clear that according to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 that M/s SIPPL and M/s SPPL are both related to M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act was proposed against Shri Prakash Chand Garg, Shri Ashish Garg and Shri Vijay Garg. 2.10 The matter was adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, AP and SEZ Mundra vide order dated 30.12.2019 in which he has confirmed the differential duty demand and imposed penalties as shown in table in para-1 above. 3 Shri K.K Anand, Ld. Advocate appeared for all the six Appellants and advanced the following submissions: - 3.1 That the DRI officers had seized 750 MT of the goods pertaining to M/s NPT from their godown at Alipur Delhi. There is no dispute that the seized goods were part of the imported goods which are the subject matter of the present dispute. Though the Additional Commissioner had ordered confiscation of the goods and had imposed penalties but on appeal the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi set aside the Order-in-Original and he categorically held that there was no evidence of under valuation by M/s NPT for the purpose of assessment. The said Order-in-Original was set aside on the ground that there was an evidence of imports of identical/similar goods at the same value. This order has attained finality as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... russels & Shri JeanSmets, Adviseur-Eerstaanwezend Inspector, Brussels, as the differential duty was solely based on documents received from overseas but the Principal Commissioner on erroneous reasoning denied the same. 3.4 That no reliance can be placed on the said documents as M/s. NPT had also sent copies of these documents (procured by the DRI from Belgium Customs) to the supplier, M/s KorCo AB, Sweden, for their comments, vide NPT e-mail dated 26.07.2019. In response the supplier denied ever having supplied these documents to the Customs and denied their correctness and genuineness. The supplier of the goods M/s. KorCo AB, Sweden informed M/s NPT that they had received certain mails from one Mr. Parthasarthy Bhaskar claiming to represent Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore India asking for their sales account statement and also details of receipt of payment (either cash or bank transfer) to all the three importers. In response to the mail received from DRI Bangalore M/s Korco AB had emailed a chart giving the details of transactions like invoice number, transaction number, date of receipt of payment& the amount received by their banker from their Bank for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not rendered any finding on the same. 3.6 He stated that M/s NPT had also brought on record ample evidence which showed that they had imported identical/similar goods from M/s Korco AB, Russia at sea port Mundra which were imported at the same price as imported from European Union. In this regards he took us through invoices, bills of entry, and some export declarations which were also enclosed with the reply to the Show Cause Notice. He also took us through evidence of identical/similar goods which were imported by M/s NPT from different suppliers located in European Union as well as imports undertaken from the suppliers located in USA and Canada almost at the same price. He also took us through the copies of the invoices and Bills of entry at which other indian importers had imported identical/similar goods at the same price. It is his contention that the entire aforementioned evidence was placed before the Principal Commissioner in reply to the Show Cause Notice but he has totally overlooked the same and has not rendered any finding on the same. 3.7 That there is nothing incriminating in the statement dated 8.8.2018 of Shri Prakash Chand Garg. Nowhere in the said statement h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Port Mundra and 5 consignments were imported at ICD TKD, Delhi during period 29.8.2014 to 11.5.2017. They have brought two export declarations on record which are available at pages no. 1904 and 1913-1914 of Paper Book Vol.4 which show the price of Euro 339 PMT and Euro 304.44 PMT which when converted to US Dollar comes to 363 PMT and 325 PMT respectively. Even in this case there is no finding of the Principal Commissioner to this vital piece of evidence. 3.10 That all the three importers have been treated as related persons merely because the Directors of same are family members and merely because of inter se transfer of funds from one company to other during the financial year 2017-18. Shri Anand took us through a chart which showed that these payments were either received against some sales transactions or these entries related to repayment of loan etc. 3.11 That another reason for treating M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL as related persons was that Shri Prakash Chand Garg was Director in a company named M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong from which M/s SPPL had imported three consignments during the disputed period. In respect of another company named as M/s The Crown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated to another no particular clause of the same has been invoked in the Show Cause Notice to treat three importers as related persons of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. There is absolutely no foundation laid down in the Show Cause Notice as to how M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kong was a related person of the three importers. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Brindavan Beverages Pvt Ltd reported in 2007(213) ELT 487(SC). 3.14 That the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously adopted Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 to reject the transaction value by adopting the actual value of the nearest period whereas the fact remains that the prices declared to the customs were the prices which were actually paid to the suppliers. As per law the only ground for rejection of transaction value can be that enumerated in Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. Rule 12 requires that the proper officer should have reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared to empower him to ask the importer to furnish further information including documents, etc. There is nothing on record to show that the department sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs(Import),Mumbai reported at-2016 (336) ELT 97(Tri.-Mum). 3.17 That the Principal Commissioner in his order has ordered confiscation of 548 MT of goods seized at godown premises of NPT at Chennai and allowed the same to be redeemed on a Redemption Fine of Rs. 11 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that since the declared value is the correct assessable value the said goods are not liable for confiscation. 3.18 That in view of above submission, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the differential duty, penalties on all the six Appellants and Redemption Fine imposed on M/s NPT. 04. On the other hand, Shri S.N Gohil, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the department made the following submissions :- 4.1 That the documents which have been relied upon by the DRI were obtained from official channels by the Second Secretary (Trade), Embassy of India, Brussels from the Belgium Customs. Therefore, its authenticity cannot be doubted. 4.2 That there was a request from M/s NPT to inspect the documents received from Belgium Customs, and for providing original/legible/English translated copies of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree Importers to undervalue the goods. He therefore supported order-in-original in totality. 4.10 In support of his various submissions he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) TRANSWORLD POLYMERS P LTD VS. CC, NHAVASHEVA REPORTED AT 2018 (363) ELT 996 (TRI-AHMD) (ii) MARTWIN ELECTRONICS VS. CST, AHMEDABAD REPORTED AT 2016(331) ELT 85 (TRI-AHMD) (iii) KONIA TRADING CO VS. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, JAIPUR REPORTED AT 2006(199) ELT 644 ( TRI-DEL) (iv) LAXMI ENTERPRISES VS. CC, NEW DELHI REPORTED AT 2018(361) ELT 1054 ( TRI-DEL) (v) LAXMI ENTERPRISES VS. COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI REPORTED AT 2020(372) ELT A33(SC) (vi) SRI KRISHNA SALES CORPORATION VS. CC, MUMBAI REPORTED AT 2017-TIOL-3650-CESTAT-MUM. (vii) CC(SEA), CHENNAI VS. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES REPORTED AT 2016(331) ELT 18 (SC) (viii) UNIVERSAL ABRASIVES & MINERAL P LTD VS. CC, CHENNAI REPORTED AT 2010(258) ELT 382(TRI-CHENNAI) (ix) TELESTAR TRAVELS P LTD VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT REPORTED AT 2013(289) ELT 3 (SC) 5 We have carefully considered the various submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the differential duty against all three importers has been confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 605 205 31E&3 2F 247 & 263 of Paper book Vol.1 19.12.14 17.11.14 046211n4 17.11.14 14.11.14 7. 6735100 1001712 400 14BEE0000 13632 646 246 31D&32 G 245 & 265of Paper book Vol.1 12.9.14 11.8.14 032215782 10.8.14 8.8.14 8. 6735402 1001713 400 14BEE0000 13632 646 246 31D&3 2H 245 &268 of Paper book Vol.1 12.9.14 11.8.14 032215782 10.8.14 8.8.14 06. We have gone through the actual invoices submitted to Indian Customs and four invoices procured from Belgium Customs. We find the following discrepancies which are very vital to the case at hand: (i) Four invoices and five export declarations relied upon by the DRI do not bear any signatures of the Belgium Customs or any other official of the Indian Embassy at Brussels. These are photocopies which only contain the seal of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit Bangalore. These documents were shown to Sh. Prakash Chand Garg while recording his statement dated 08.08.2018.It is mentioned on these documents as seen and bear the signatures of Sh. Prakash Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence; (c) in a case falling under clause (i) also presume, unless the contrary is proved,the truth of the contents of such document.] (d) [Explanation: For the purposes of this section "document" includes inventories, photographs and lists certified by a Magistrate under sub-section (lC) of section 110.]" In our considered opinion, the relied upon documents do not meet the test of Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence are not admissible in evidence. Since these documents are neither signed nor authenticated and also full of numerous discrepancies as explained above, no presumption can be raised about its truthfulness. In support of our above findings we rely upon the following judgments:- (i) Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. It is for this reason that the majority did not consider it safe to place reliance on photocopies of copies of the documents recovered by the Customs Officer not from the Customs Department in Japan but from the agencies which are stated to have exported the material in question. It is also found that one of these copies of the alleged declarations bears the seal of the Customs at Kobe and the name of the vessel is shown to be 'Raya Fortune' but the itinerary of that vessel collected at the instance of the Indian Customs shows that the said vessel had never touched Kobe which raises a serious doubt as to how far this document is authentic. The majority raises the question as to how the declaration at Kobe and shipment from Osaka are reconcilable noting that there is no explanation coming forth. The majority feels that the authenticity of the documents itself is suspect. In these circumstances, the presumption to be raised under Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act could not be raised because the document did not bear any signature, did not come from proper custody and it is difficult to understand why the Indian Customs did not interact with the Japan Customs and obtain auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. No explanation has been given by the DRI as to if the purported export declaration of higher value was available why corresponding invoices were not provided by the Belgium Customs as export declaration is always prepared on the basis of an invoice. Further, the duty of Rs. 74,640 has been confirmed on the ground that there was a difference in weight to the extent of 8.552 MT in respect of two Bills of Entry both dated 12.9.2014 as the procured invoices showed the actual quantity 447.492 MT where the actual invoices showed the total quantity imported as 438.940 MT. Since we have already held hereinabove that the procured invoices are not admissible in evidence hence the charge of misdeclaration in quantity of import of goods in respect of two Bills of Entry can also be not sustained. 6.3 We note that during the investigation the DRI Zonal Unit Bangalore had sent contents e-mail dated 22.1.2019 to one Mr. Jens Galatius representing M/s Korco AB, Sweden. In this email the DRI stated that they were investigating one company known as M/s NPT and two of its sister concerns. The preliminary investigation revealed that they were not revealing the actual prices of the products which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, 2007 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, when the seller and buyer have no interest in the business of each other and price is sole consideration for the sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation that is at the time when the goods reach customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the department has to give cogent reason for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable department has to find whether there are any imports of identical or similar goods at higher price around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, question of rejecting the invoice price or transaction value cannot arise in the absence of such evidence and invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. In the present case, it is noted that M/s NPT had imported 43 consignments of stocklot of coated/uncoated paper rolls in mix size a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962 is the sole repository of law governing valuation of goods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only in respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the valuation of export goods. That must be done based on Section 14 itself. In the present case, the Department has charged the respondent-importer alleging mis-declaration regarding the price. There is no allegation of mis-declaration in the context of the description of the goods. In the present case, the allegation is of under-invoicing. The charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department to prove that the apparent is not the real. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared in the Bill of Entry is the value referred to above and not merely the invoice price. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore, det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the courts' proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is placed by the Department in support of its allegation of under-valuation. Once the Department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. Section 14(1) speaks of "deemed value". Therefore, invoice price can be disputed. However, it is for the Department to prove that the invoice price is incorrect. When there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the invoice price is liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules and not for determining the price at which goods are ordinarily sold at the time and place of importation. This is where the conceptual difference between va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order to obtain incentives from his Government. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal". 8. Before concluding, we may point out that in the present case at the stage of show cause notice, the Department invoked Rule 8 on the ground that the invoice submitted by the importer was incorrect. In Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court observed that Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules refers to the transaction value. Utilization of the word 'the' as definite article indicated that what should be accepted as the transaction value for the purpose of assessment under the Customs Act is the price actually paid by the importer for the particular transaction, unless it is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). In the said judgment, it has been further held that, the word 'payable' in Rule 4(1) also refers to the "transaction value" and payability in respect of the transaction envisaged a situation where payment of price stood deferred. Therefore, this decision of the Supreme Court directs the Revenue to decide the validity of the particular value instead of rejecting the transaction value. We wish, however, to clarify that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that when there was evidence of imports of identical/similar goods at the same value, transaction value cannot be rejected. We may note here that the documents from Belgium Customs were received subsequent to the passing of above Order-in-Appeal i.e. on 31.1.2018 but the fact remains that when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order in favour of M/s NPT, the DRI Bangalore unit was in process of investigation and had already entered into correspondence with Embassy of India, Brussels. If the DRI or the Customs Department was of the view that M/s NPT and two other importers had indulged in undervaluation nothing prevented them from challenging the above Order-in-Appeal before the Tribunal. We find that there cannot be two different set of findings in respect of the same imports. Hence from this point of view also, the enhancement of the declared value cannot be supported. 6.7 The Principal Commissioner has placed heavy reliance on last statement of Shri Prakash Chand Garg Director of M/s NPT which was recorded on 8.8.2018. We have noted above that the three statements from Shri Garg were recorded which are dated 23.1.2015, 24.4.2018 and 8.8.2018. According to the Principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e; it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. This proposition of law has been well laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala and others reported at (1972) 4 SCC 683. Further, we observe that the statement of Sh. Prakash Chand Garg dated 8.8.2018 was with regard to the procured documents. Once we have held that the said documents are not admissible in evidence any statement recorded on said procured documents will have no evidential value. 6.8 The Principal Commissioner in para 26.5 of his order has observed that nowhere it is inferred that the said retraction was received by the DRI so as to record a counter statement in context with the retraction. We observe that this finding has been rendered without finding the factual position from the DRI. In any event this retraction was filed by both M/s NPT and Shri Prakash Chand Garg before the Principal Commissioner in reply to the Show Cause Notice. Once said affidavit was filed before the Adjudicating Authority it was incumbent upon him to call Shri Prakash Chand Garg for cross examination with regard to statement made by him in his affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAI reported at-2016(336)ELT97(Tri.-Mum). 6.10 That on the issue of inter-relationship between the three importers and the fact that all the three have been treated as related persons on twin grounds. In the first place it has been observed by the Principal Commissioner that Shri Prakash Chand Garg was Director of M/s NPT whereas his sons Shri Vijay Garg and Shri Ashish Garg were Directors of M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL. He further observed that all three are part of same family and reside at the same residential address. He noted that there had been fund transfers among the three importers during period the financial year 2017-18 and these fund transfers were duly reflected in their financial statements. He further relied upon a letter dated 29.8.2018 of Consulate General of India, Hong Kong wherein it was stated that M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. which was one of major supplier to M/s NPT was related to all three entities namely M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL. It has been held that Shri Prakash Chand Garg was one of the Directors in M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong and by virtue of that position all the three importers are related persons of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat merely because sons of Shri Prakash Chand Garg were Directors in M/s SPPL they cannot be treated as related persons in terms of Rule 2(2) of CVR, 2007. In any event the prices at which M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd sold the goods to M/s SPPL were at the same level as they sold to other buyers in India such as M/s Yashika Traders and M/s Shivam Enterprises. In this regards we have gone through invoices of these two firms where the price PMT has been shown in the range of US$ 400 to US$ 425 PMT. This evidence was placed before the Principal Commissioner but he has not rebutted or controverted on the same. Similarly in respect of M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kong, M/s SPPL does not have any relation with the owner Shri Vikash Khatuwala. Merely because he held stake in the company where father of Directors of M/s SPPL was a Director cannot be ground to treat M/s SPPL to be a related person of M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kong. Further we have also gone through invoices at which M/s The Crown Commercial House had sold the identical goods to various parties in India such as M/s Vinod Paper Co., M/s BKH Enterprises, M/s Garg Paper Mart, M/s RKS Paper Impex and M/s Jinda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Unit had clarified that all payments from the three importers were made by bank transfer only. Further M/s NPT have also brought on record a letter from the supplier where they have stated that documents received from Belgium Customs were not issued by their office. This factual aspect has not been rebutted or controverted in the Show Cause Notice. Further we note that value has been redetermined on the basis of procured export declarations/invoices for which we have already rendered detailed findings that these are not admissible documents in terms of Section 139 (ii) of Customs Act. Further all three importers brought on record export declarations in respect of disputed consignments itself which show that the transaction value was correctly declared in all the cases. Further there is enough evidence on record that international price of identical goods was at the same commercial level at which three importers have imported the goods. It is to be appreciated that Rules 4 to 9 of CVR are subject to Rule 3 ibid. Rule 3(1) of CVR provides that subject to Rule 12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W DELHI 2020(372) ELT A33(SC) (vi) SRI KRISHNA SALES CORPORATION VS. CC, MUMBAI 2017-TIOL-3650-CESTAT-MUM- (vii) NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES VS. CC(SEA), CHENNAI 2016(331) ELT 18 (SC) (viii) UNIVERSAL ABRASIVES & MINERAL P LTD VS. CC, CHENNAI 2010(258) ELT 382(Tri-Chennai) (ix) TELESTAR TRAVELS P LTD VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT 2013(289) ELT 3 (SC) In this regard, we find that these judgments have no applicability to the facts of the case at hand. In the first case of M/s Transworld Polymers Pvt Ltd, the documents were directly obtained from the supplier M/s Delphi Fibers Italy and there was a statement from the supplier accepting the authenticity of those documents. In the second case of M/s Martwin Electronics, the export declarations were obtained through official channels from Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong under the proper signatures and seal of the concerned authorities. These documents were signed by the merchandiser and the exporter. In the third case of M/s Konia Trading Co., there was a report dated 24.7.1999 written by an officer of Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong wherein they had brought evidence on record wherein the amounts perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 (Rupees Eleven Lakh Only) in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered to enforce the Bonds and encash Bank Guarantees towards such Redemption Fine. Since we have already held that M/s NPT had correctly declared the transaction value there is no justification for confiscation of the seized goods. We therefore set aside the Redemption Fine. 6.18 That the Principal Commissioner has also imposed penalties on M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL under the Section 114A, 114AA as indicated in the chart in the opening paragraph of this order. Similarly, he also imposed penalties on Sh. Prakash Chand Garg Director of M/s NPT, Sh. Ashish Garg and Sh. Vijay Garg both Directors of M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL under Section 112A, 114AA of the Customs Act,1962. Since we have held in detail that all three importers had correctly declared transactions value there is no justification for imposing penalties aforementioned upon above three importers and their Directors. We therefore set aside the penalties on all the six Appellants. 07. In view of our above findings, the differential duty demand on all three importers, imposition of penalties on all parties and Redempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
