9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported under the Bill of Entry No. 8120923 dated 09.01.2017 i.e. Rs. 6,33,897.33 is rejected under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 17 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered to be re-assessed at Rs. 1,45,58,787/- (34260 kgs. @ Rs. 424.95) under Rule 3 and 4 of the CVR, 2007 with consequential duty liability and interest, if any. (ii) I order for confiscation of the impugned goods under section 111 (i) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) (ii) and Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Nanz Med Science Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) (ii) and Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Manmit Singh Malhotra, Director of M/s Nanz Med Science Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) (ii) and Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Lakhvinder Pal Singh Puri, Director of M/s Nanz Med Science Pharma Pvt. Ltd". 2. Nanz imported guar gum (Hydroxyp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Manmit Singh Malhotra in his various statement recorded under Section 108of the Customs Act. I find that in his statement dated 15.03.2017, Shri Manmit Singh Malhotra, director of the Company has clearly stated that the requisition for the goods was conveyed to Shri Lakhvinder Singh Puri and he would in return tell them whether the item was available in CANADA with their sister concern or had to be procured from other vendor/s. He further stated that it was Shri Lakhvinder Singh Puri who negotiated and decide on the prices, which prima facie proves his indulgence and influence in day to day working of the firm. Further I find that Shri Manmit Singh Malhotra, Director of the Company in his voluntary statement dated 19.04.2017 has stated that no order telephonic or otherwise was placed for import of the said consignment as the consignment was for trading purpose only. He further stated that purchase of goods for trading was solely done by Shri Lakhvinder Singh Puri which further strengthens the allegation leveled against the party in the Show Cause Notice that the parties are covered by Rule 2 (2) of the CVR, 2007 in terms of sub-rule (v) as Shri Lakhvinder Singh Puri directly con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seas supplier. e) Therefore, although the overseas supplier and Nanz were related parties, such relationship cannot be held to have affected the price. f) When goods are valued, if the prices of contemporaneous imports are considered, they must be only of identical goods and cannot be even of similar goods. g) Even if the valuation and demand of duty are decided against the importer, there is no case to impose penalties on Shri Puri and Shri Malhotra. h) In view of the above, all three appeals may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 6. Learned authorised representative supported the impugned order and submitted as follows: a) This is not merely a case of difference of views on the grade of the guar gum imported but is a case where Nanz mis-declared several aspects which came to light only on investigation. b) The quantity of the goods imported itself was mis-declared to the extent of 1,680 kg. c) A very important factor in determining the value of the imported goods and if they are related parties, it is a very significant factor. The appellant mis-declared that the overseas supplier and Nanz are not related. On investigation, when a statement was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputing the first two. 8. We, therefore, examine if, based on the evidence available on record, if the guar gum which is imported is of food grade or of other than food grade. Revenue's contention that it is of food grade is based on the test reports of AES to whom the samples were sent by CRCL. The appellant did not dispute the samples being sent to this laboratory and in fact, had paid the fee for the testing also. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue has produced before the covering letter under which the samples were sent to the CRCL for testing which were further forwarded to AES. All samples which are drawn are entered in a register by the Customs and the entry number in the registered gives the correlation with the sample and these numbers were further correlated with the test reports. For these reasons, we find the test reports of AES credible and they state that the imported guar gum was of food grade. 9. We have carefully examined the test report of Balaji and the declaration of the Director of Balaji submitted during the hearing. Neither the test report nor the declaration state any marks and numbers of the samples which were tested. Therefore, we are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
