TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 12-5-2003 was misdeclared and grossly undervalued. The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, initiated an investigation. During investigation, the examination of the consignment was done by the Officers posted at the Dock in the presence of DRI Officers and CHA of the importer. The statement of Shri Manish Ghelani, Proprietor of the importing firm was also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. From the Bill of Entry and other import documents, it was seen that relevant details of the imported items viz. brand, make, part number etc. had not been declared. The importer was asked to submit the details as well as "Country of Origin" Certificate from the respective Chambers of Commerce for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted the same on the ground that the make was not mentioned in the import document without making any efforts to verify the same by calling upon the records concerning the same. He submits that they have produced the same evidences of previous imports showing the value at which the Department allowed the clearance of the goods. The Department cannot discard the value already accepted by them earlier and the same value declared by us in the present case merely at their sweet will. He further submits that the Commissioner has on the one hand alleged that the quotation are not being used for rejecting the transacted value but on the other hand determine the transacted value based on such quotation. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same. He submits that in the impugned order, there is no material to reject the classification suggested by us. ld. Advocate, Shri Chowdhury, relies on the judgment in the case of M/s Asian Rubber Works v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 401 (T). He submits that there is no mis-declaration on the description of goods and the burden of classification of the items is on the Department. He submits that they had already informed vide their letter 25-7-2003 at page 55 of the Paper Book, that the Certificate of Origin issued from the Chamber of Commerce cannot be provided. However, the consignor, M/s Map Equipments intimated in the invoice itself, the country of origin of the goods as is evident from page 50 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signment could not be found", is incorrect. From perusal of the case file, it is clear that datas were available on Indian Customs EDI System-Imports, Chennai Customs House (Sea Cargo), Chennai. The appellants have submitted Bill of Entry for home consumption dated 21st May, 2003 at page Nos. 168, 170, 171, 172 & 173, which contained the details of photo-copier parts imported through Chennai Customs House, Chennai. In the instant case, the consignment was imported vide Bill of Entry dated 12-5-2003. Hence the finding of the Commissioner of Customs is factually incorrect that "thus in the absence of essential details of contemporaneous imports of identical/similar brands, models and OEM etc., it appeared that the value of the subject goods c....