TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that the values of the cameras had been under-invoiced and misdeclared in customs documents and there was customs duty evasion. Details of alleged undervaluation and duty evasion are available in the Table reproduced below : Bill of Entry No. Duty paid on import Alleged Undervaluation Actual Duty Differential Duty Duty paid during investigation Duty Due (Rs.) (%) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 23482, dated 14-5-1996 2,81,226 41 5,67,419 2,86,193 23483, dated 14-5-1996 7,16,007 78 39,45,114 32,29,107 12,50,000 22,65,300 24856, dated 21-5-1996 1,48,952 53 3,17,106 1,68,154 1,49,064 19,090 53156, dated 3-9-1997 8,14,88....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the statement of Shri Arora. 3. The appellants had denied the allegations during adjudication proceedings. They had submitted that the materials relied upon by the Customs authorities, which were in the nature of export declarations or summary of declarations did not constitute legal evidence. They had also pointed out that these documents were not authenticated by the Hong Kong Customs authorities and therefore, their authenticity was in doubt. Appellant also relied on several decisions in support of their contention that unauthenticated and unsubstantiated materials like export declarations, could not form the basis for a finding of misdeclaration of value [C.C., Mumbai v. East Punjab Traders - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.); Sigma ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had been retracted. Much case law has also been cited in support of the contention that unauthenticated invoices, export declarations etc. cannot be the basis for dislodging invoice prices/transaction values. 5. Now we proceed to examine the evidence keeping in mind the appellant's objection. We note that evidence on record covers transaction at both ends - appellant importer in India and supplier at Hong Kong. We may begin with correspondence recovered from the appellants' premises. Among the seized documents is a fax dated 29-9-1997 which states as under : "TO : MONICA DATE 29-9-1997 FROM : PRADEEP ARORA I am sending you 5 pages. KINDLY TYPE THE SAME EXACTLY SAME NEATLY ON "YOUR LETTER HEAD & FAX IT TO ME AS SOO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RORA) 6. We are unable to understand how such communications could be explained as for the innocent purpose of facilitating business communications in English between non-English people. The real purpose of this correspondence is evident when it is seen in the context of appellant's import. The appellant imported a consignment of cameras under invoice dated 12th May 1997 describing the item as "NO BRAND 35 MM MANUAL CAMERA". The preceding fax dated 6th March wherein the supplier was asked to supply "SKINA SK-107 CAMERA WITHOUT BRAND NAME & OE BOX" makes it abundantly clear that the invoicing of the camera as "No brand" was to conceal the real identity of the camera. Importing without 'OE BOX" (Original equipment packing) was also to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... countries to clarify various aspects and to confirm that the values reported related to the very goods under import. Hong Kong customs have also reported that there are no export incentives at Hong Kong, which can prompt exporters to declare higher export values. 8. In the above state of evidence, we find no reason to entertain any doubt that values declared in the import invoices were false and were deliberately so declared so as to undervalue the cameras to evade customs duty. Care was also taken to conceal the correct identity of the goods by suppressing the brand of the goods, by describing the cameras as "no brand" in the invoice and remaining original packings so as to ensure that undervaluation is not detected. Customs Autho....