TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the conclusion of investigation, it was noticed by the officers that the price declared by the respondent-imported needs to be re-assessed as the goods were mis-declared as seconds or rejects while goods which were imported were of prime quality. A show-cause notice dt. 14/8/2003 was issued for rejection of transaction values in respect of 10 consignments mentioned therein and to re-determine the values on the basis of contemporaneous imports and consequently demands, interest and penalty. Respondent contested the show-cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The respondent sought cross-examination of the people who deposed before the authorities that they had purchased prime quality material from the respondent. After considering the written submission, reply to the show-cause notice and the proceedings before him in cross-examination, adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that there is no case due to paucity of evidence. Coming to such conclusion, he dropped the proceedings in respect of the ten Bills of Entry. Aggrieved by such an order, Revenue is before us. The assessee/respondent has also filed a cross-objection. 3. The ld. SDR would draw our at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh. 4. Ld. Counsel would submit that the ld. Commissioner in his finding has examined the statements given by the witnesses and the evidence recorded during the course of cross-examination and has come to a conclusion that there is no assertion from any of the evidences that the materials received from the respondents is of prime quality. It is his submission that none of the buyers has stated that the goods purchased by them from the respondent relate to the subject imports made under the cover of 10 Bills of Entry during the period 19/8/1998 to 2/12/1999. It is his submission that the statement of Shri Dhyaneshwar Yadav would clearly show that the payments were made by M/s. S.B. Marketing to the respondent by Demand Draft or by cheque and the amounts were paid on running account basis and not against each invoice and at the end of the year, the accounts were adjusted and settled. It is his submission that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has sought direction for remanding the matter with prayer that the Commissioner should have ascertained from the respondent pricing pattern offered by them to their customers for the consignments under dispute and should have reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f prime quality. There were inconsistencies some stating the goods are FR-2, some stating FR-4; but none of them relatable to these imports. In the case of one buyer namely SB Marketing, on the basis of values raised in the invoice, it was argued that the goods were of prime quality. While this may show a hint of suspicion, it is now well established that suspicion however grave cannot take the place of proof. The alone would not be a conclusive proof to re-determine the value. No samples were drawn and perhaps nor it was possible to draw it too. 12. As regards to the statements of the Importer given during the course of investigation of offences registered at Hyderabad and Mumbai and other documents recovered during the course of such investigation, all this does not relate to the imports involved in these Bills of Entry. I am of the opinion, that even if the Importer is convicted in several past cases, it would be very difficult to generalize and extrapolate that evidence to the present proceedings. I am of the opinion that sufficient evidence was not produced against the importer for rejection of transaction value. 13. As regards to re-determination of values....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Entry dt. 12/5/2000 is an invoice, copy of which is available at page 93 of paper book Volume-II. The Revenue has considered this document to be an invoice issued by Isola Asia Pacific (Singapore) Inc, to R.R. Enterprises. There is no mention of the name of the consignee / buyer in this document, nor does this document bear any date, nor is it duly signed. The Revenue has heavily relied on this document (so-called invoice ) which indicates the name of the goods as Glass Epoxy Copper Clad Laminates and the value of the goods as USD 71,125. Ld. SDR has only reiterated the observations of the Commissioner in relation to this document. But we have found substance in the submissions of the Counsel. This document, with all the said infirmities, can hardly be accepted as a manufacturer s or trader s invoice. The Revenue has no case that it is international practice to issue a commercial invoice without naming the buyer / consignee. The whole case of the Revenue in respect of the goods covered by Bill of Entry dt. 12/5/2000 is based on this document. On the basis of this document, they alleged that, in the said Bill of Entry, the importer misdeclared the description and value of the goods....