2005 (12) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r clearing bowling alley equipment from ICD, Bangalore. Intelligence was received that the appellants mis-declared the quantity and value of the equipment imported. Investigations revealed that the appellant imported 12 lane equipment declaring the same to be 6 lane equipment. Revenue proceeded against the appellants by issue of show cause notice dated 6-8-2002. The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order confiscating the bowling alley equipment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- was imposed. Differential duty of Rs. 11,46,537/- was demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Interest of Rs. 1,53,907/- was demanded under Section 28AB. A penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....situations provided in Rule 4 (2) and 4(3) do not exists and Rules do not permit the rejection of the declared value, if such value is supported by an invoice from the seller. The Board's Circulars are binding on the Department. The following case laws were relied on : (a)      K.P. Verghese v. ITO - 1981 (131) ITR 687 (S.C.) (b)      Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) (c)      Paulose and Mathen v. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 (S.C.) (d)      Paper Products Ltd. - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) (iv)    In the absence of corroborative evidences such as contemporaneous imports, under-valu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) and SIJ Electronics Comp. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. v. CC - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 528 (Tri-Bang.). (x)     During the hearing, the learned advocate submitted that the contention of the Revenue that the appellants had imported 12 lane bowling alley equipment and declared them to be 6 lane equipment is not correct. In fact, what they imported was only 6 lane bowling alley but the same was utilized for 12 lane and therefore, there is no justification in discarding the transaction value. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the Order-in-Original. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Revenue's investigation revealed that the bowling alley equipment installed by the appellant is a 12 lane bowling alley eq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant that they negotiated for a lower price. In Para 104 of the Order-in-Original, the Adjudicating Authority has indicated the manner in which adjustment has been done in respect of the value of imports made by Megabowl to arrive at the value of imports made by the appellants. The method adopted by the Adjudicating Authority has not been properly dealt with by the appellants. We are not convinced that a 6 lane equipment could be converted into 12 lane equipment, as contended by the learned advocate during the personal hearing. No evidence in the form of expert opinion has been let in. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 111 of his order has dealt with the role of Shri Ravi Madan, in the import of the equipments. There is evidence ....