2008 (10) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded to the original authority to finalise the provisional assessment prior to initiating any penal action. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, in party's appeal No. C/605/2007 are as follows : (a)     M/s. Radiant Acrylic imported a consignment and filed bill of entry No. 50 dated 10-6-96; declared the description as acrylic sheet off cuts; declared the value as US $ 308 per M.T.;declared the net quantity as 47,739 kg. and overall value as Rs. 5,45,685/-. (b)     On examination, in addition to declared quantity of acrylic sheet off cuts, it was found to contain multi-wall panels weighing 4730 kgs. (c)&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....um party M/s. Gemini Corporation is an aggregator i.e. who collects acrylic sheets off cuts from different parties for subsequent sale. They sold the goods to Singapore based party namely, M/s. Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. The goods in containers have been shipped from Belgium party to India as per advice by the Singapore Party. (b)     The relevant transaction is the one between the Indian importer and the Singapore based supplier. The Singapore party and Indian importer have entered into a oral contract at a price of 308 US $ per M.T. There is no evidence that the importer in India has sent any money in excess of what has been mentioned in the invoice raised on them by the Singapore party. (c)     At w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the transaction between Indian importer and Singapore party is on the basis of oral contract which is rather unusual in the international trade. It does not stand to reason the Singapore party who has purchased the same 750 US $ PMT will sell at 308 US $ PMT by them. The Indian importer has not chosen to correspond to his supplier seeking any explanation for the said unusual transaction. 6.2 If the invoice price by Belgium party to the Singapore Party is correct then the invoice price by the Singapore Party to the Indian importer, obviously cannot be correct. A suggestion was made by the Belgium party might have over-declared the value to avail export incentive. This suggestion has to be ignored, as the Belgium Customs authorities....