AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already examined by the Customs Kakinada and was being loaded into 3 lorries viz., HR 38 B-2427 (already loaded), DR 1 GA-6099 and DL 1 GA 6005 (to be loaded), which were destined to Delhi. The other bills of entry Nos. 622 and 623 dated 24-10-2000 were provisionally assessed by the Customs, Kakinada. Duties of Customs for the above three bills were already paid by the importer. The loaded lorry was destuffed and the entire cargoes placed in the godown for a detailed examination. The officers took inventory of the cargo and found that 201, 245 and 235 cartons as against the declared number 194, 245 and 235 were available in the consignments covered under Bills of Entry Nos. 622, 623 & 624 respectively. 3. The officers examined the goods in detail under panchanama, took note of the quantity of fabric physically present and the markings on the fabrics and packing materials. It was observed that the country of origin of the imported fabrics was either 'Korea' or Taiwan'. But, was declared by the importer as 'China' in the bills of entry. Quantities of fabrics were physically present in respect of each bill of entry i.e., B.E. No. 622/24-10-2000 - 47,189 yds.; 623/24-10-2000 - 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms, Visakhapatnam showing Kakinada as "Place of delivery." Subsequently, the Customs, Visakhapatnam vide their letter dated 26-09-2000 refused the above request of the importer for transhipment of the containers to Kakinada and directed them to file the bill of entry and clear the goods through Vizag Customs House. M/s. RN vide their letter dated 28-9-2000 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam reiterated the request for transhipment and pressed for the same. The steamer agent M/s. APL (India) also requested for transhipment of the goods to Kakinada on behalf of the importer. The Customs, Vizag after reconsidering the request vide letter dated 12-10-2000 permitted transhipment. 7. The transhipment cargo in three 40' containers arrived at Kakinada on 22-10-2000. Necessary documents and bill of entry No. 622, 623 & 624 all dated 24-10-2000 were filed with the Customs, Kakinada. The bills of entry were assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Customs, Kakinada. Copy of Bond executed for provisional assessment of the three BEs was forwarded by DC Customs Division Port Area Kakinada vide his letter No. 32/2000-Cus. dated 15-11-2002. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adopted for the purpose of arriving at assessable value of the subject consignments. 11. From the foregoing, it appeared that - (a) M/s. RN, in which name the goods have been imported appeared to be a firm floated to facilitate evasion of Customs duty on the imported goods as the firm exists only on paper without any office, employees etc. The addresses of the firm at Mumbai & Kakinada declared in the import documents were found to be incorrect and the correspondence sent to the said addresses was returned by the postal authorities. Mr. Vijay Kumar Gandhi @ Vijay Kumar said to be the proprietor of M/s. R.N. International appears to be not a bona fide importer. He has not financed the imports. He is a man of ordinary means having no past record of imports and exports. (b) It appeared that Vijay Kumar Gandhi with the connivance of Mr. Vishal Bahri, Admn. Manager of M/s. Newton Engineering & Construction, Dubai, the supplier of the goods, Sri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal and Shri K.K. Kaura @ K. Kumar fabricated the invoices, packing lists, certification of country of origin and deliberately mis-declared the description, weight value and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 8,00,000/- Rs Eight lakhs only 623, dated 24-10-2000 Rs. 20,73,931.70 Rs. 8,00,000/- Rs. Eight lakhs only 624 dated 24-10-2000 Rs. 18,76,425.05 Rs. 8,00,000/- Rs. Eight lakhs only Total Rs. 59,50,359.25 Rs. 24,00,000 (Rs. Twenty four lakhs only) 8. I also impose penalty as under on Shri Vijay Kumar Gandhi, Proprietor of RN International as follows under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. B/E No. 8 & Dated Penalty on Shri Vijay Kumar Gandhi 622, dated 24-10-2000 Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs only) 623, dated 24-10-2000 Rs. 5,00, 000/ (Rs. Five lakhs only) 624, dated 24-10-2000 Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs only) Total Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lakhs only)" 13. After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found : (a) No ground as regards the classification arrived at/or the subject goods under heading 6001.92 by the Commissioner, as against 6002.43 as declared by the appellant, has been taken in the appeal before us. Therefore, the classification under 6001.92 is not under challenge. (b) The goods falling under 6001.92 as per show-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Stock Lots, FOB Lots, and Clearance Goods. Valuations of comparative prices resorted to by the Commissioner as regards raising the values is therefore not upheld, since Mixed-Lots and Stock-Lots, cannot be compared with the Prime uniform goods. As per the material values available for comparison to the Commissioner, it is not known, whether those comparable Bills of Entries and other documents were for prime-goods or mixed-lot goods. The mixed-lot goods cannot be compared with prime-lot goods and in this view of the matter we find no reason to consider the rejection of declared values and raising the same and final misdeclaration. It is relevant here to observe that when duties were to be charged by weight, goods being classified under 6001.92, there would be no incentive for appellants to misdeclare the values. In this view, the valuation arrived at by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. (e) Considering the plea made by the appellant that the assessments were provisional, we find that the order of the Commissioner itself admits that this is an order of confirmation of provisional assessments. The appellants were directed to produce copy of the P.D. bond ex....