TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es were detained. The goods which were found in stock were the part of goods imported under Bill of Entry No.2670239 dated 02.04.2019, 2814591 dated 12.04.2019, 3030420 dated 29.04.2019 and 3887634 dated 01.07.2019 which were seized. 3. The statement of the proprietor of the appellant was recorded who admitted that to remain competitive, they were under valuing the goods. During the impugned period, the goods under the live Bill of Entry No. 4099408 dated 17.07.2019 were examined under Panchnama dated 25.07.2019 on appellant's own request vide letter dated 26.07.2019. The Bill of Entry was reassessed and the appellant accepted the value loading at USD 1.21 per sq meter of PVC panels and USD 0.10 per meter for PVC clips. The appellant also deposited two demand drafts of an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 5/- lakhs which got deposited on 25.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 being the differential duty for past imports. It is, thereafter that the impugned show cause notice No. 856/2019/25 dated 10.01.2020 was served upon the appellant proposing the rejection of declared value of Rs. 80,90,849/- to be re-determined as Rs. 1,11,90,836/- in terms of sub-rule (1) of under Rule 12 of Customs Valuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and thereafter out of charge order was passed. The present show cause notice has disturbed the assessment of the goods which were already cleared by the department themselves that too, without any evidence. The confirmation of the differential duty is therefore, alleged to be apparently wrong. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. reported in 2019 (17) SCC 46 (SC). 7. It has also been brought to notice that the department while re-determining the value has referred to certain price list but admittedly the same was never brought on record. The duty demand has been confirmed solely relying on the statement of the appellant alleging it to be the admission of under valuation on part of the appellant. It is submitted that the said statement was recorded under coercion, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Madras Vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd reported in 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) is wrongly relied upon by the adjudicating authority. In the said case the dispute was with respect to classification and not the valuation. Learned counsel impressed upon that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was also in-volu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in course of international trade. Accordingly, the price paid by the importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be deemed to be the value in absence of any circumstance indicated in Section 14 sub-section 1 of Customs Act and those in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules. I draw my support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Limited Vs. Commissioner reported as 2001 (1) SCC 315. In a subsequent decision in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (235) ELT 193 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the meaning of word "ordinarily" occurring in Section 14 (sub-section 1) of the Customs Act holding that it is "non-exceptional" or "usual" instead of meaning "universally". It has been held that by use of word "ordinarily" the indication is that ordinary value of the goods is what it would have been in course of international trade at the time of import. 12. In view of these observations of Hon'ble Apex Court, I hold that primarily the value declared by the importer exporter has to be conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involuntary. Indisputably a confession would come within the purview of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to which confession is irrelevant except if making the confusion appears to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Jain Vs. Director of Enforcement reported in 1963 (2) SCR 297, The constitution Bench thereof, has held that initial burden to prove that the confession is voluntary rests upon the department. 15. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 held that Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act lays down the rule that a confession made under inducement, threat or promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Court clarified that if it appears to the Court that the making of confession was under any inducement, threat or promise the confession is liable to be excluded from the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court also clarified that all admissions cannot be called as confessions and the initial burden lies upon the department. In another decision in the case of Mirach Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs reported in - 1998 (3) S....