Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties was justified where the record indicated that the goods had been undervalued by showing invoices of intermediary traders instead of the true transaction with the foreign manufacturers.
Analysis: The documentary material, including the manufacturers' invoices, shipping particulars, seized records, and confirmations obtained from abroad, indicated that the real sale was directly between the foreign manufacturers and the Indian importers. The invoices issued by the Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan traders appeared to have been introduced only to suppress the true price. In such circumstances, the assessable value had to be determined on the basis of the actual transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and the findings of misdeclaration and personal involvement supported the demand and penalties. As the revenue case was strongly supported by the evidence, there was no basis for dispensing with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act.
Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was declined. The importers were directed to deposit the duty demanded and the director was directed to deposit the specified portion of the penalties, with waiver confined only to the balance after compliance.