Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed order). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on scrutiny of the Bills of Entry filed by the appellants, during the period from January 2008 to November 2011 for clearance of slack wax and residue wax, it was found that the said bills of entry were provisionally assessed in terms of sec. 18 of Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of test bond and test report. However, 3 bills of entry filed by M/s. Bilal Match Works, Sivakasi and one bill of entry filed by M/s. Ahsic Match Industries, Sivakasi were finally assessed. Investigation appeared to show that these 4 consignments were sold to the appellants on high-sea sale basis by M/s. Abhisek India (3 consignments) and M/s. Raj Speciality Chemicals P. Ltd. (1 consignment). The appellants declared th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tity Shri Noor Mohammed subsequently in his statement with the declared price of M/s. Savo Polymers, it is apparent that the actual price declared in his statements is very closely in line with the price of the identical goods imported during the relevant period. In light of the evidences available, it appeared that the prices arrived from the value declared subsequently by the appellants i.e. USD 868 per MT is the actual price which has been suppressed by them in collusion with M/s. Abhisek India and M/s. Raj Speciality Chemicals P. Ltd. Further, it was also found that the appellants have declared the price of slack wax @ USD 350/CF/MT and residue wax at USD 350/CF/MT in Bills of Entry No. 453879 dated 6.2.2009 and No. 441993 dated 29.7.20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. iii. Contemporary evidence were grossly disregarded. Against their value declared in February 2009 and November 2010, a hand-picked invoice of year 2011 of one importer was chosen. iv. Cross Examination grossly skipped/denied without a word regarding their request for the same. v. Contradicting identity of foreign supplier - totally unknown to us relied upon. The foreign supplier in case of related import (wherein we involved as High Sea Purchaser) was Harmony Impex FZE Dubai. However one Mr Massoud Moussighi was referred to as partner of one M/s Future Global Expander Cop. vi. The issue of revenue neutrality was involved issue. However OIO and impugned OIA ignored their submissions without discussion. He stated that considering .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction value declared by the importer. It does not provide a method of determination of value but provides the procedure or mechanism in cases where declared value has been rejected. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 stipulates that on request of an importer, the proper officer shall intimate to the importer in writing the grounds, i.e. the reason for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. Further, the proper officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the importer before he makes the valuation in the form of final decision under sub-rule (1). 4.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling (supra) went on to summarise the provisions of rule 12 of the Valuation Rules as fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the transactional value in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules." 5. We find that the Original Authority has not complied with the two-step verification and examination exercise, as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Revenue has not followed the procedure under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of CVR, 2007. This was all the more necessary when the proper officer only relied upon a value declared in a statement to arrive at the transaction value. The appellants request for cross-examination of certain witnesses was also denied. The averments made by the appellant in this case show that there has been a challenge to procedural fairness. 5.1 Further the valuation of the goods is sought to be done under Rule 9 of the CVR 2007, as per the value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates