TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods and imposing penalty on the importer. There is no representation for the respondents in appeals C/812-814/02 despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The respondents in appeals C/811, 815 & 816/02 are represented by counsel. The appellant is represented by the SDR. We proceed to take up all the appeals for final disposal. The respondents except Sri Narayan Baheti are the importers who filed bills of entry for clearance of furnace oil imported from Dubai in the month of February 2000. M/s. Standard Industries Ltd. declared the value of the goods as US$ 144.4 per MT while others declared the value as US$ 141.5 per MT in the respective bills of entry. After investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value. In other words, the declared value was accepted. In the remaining appeals, the department has challenged this part of the Commissioner's order on a few grounds. The learned SDR has reiterated the grounds of the appeals. 3. The learned counsel has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the department chose not to file appeal against the Commissioner's decision vis-à-vis many other importers, even though the review order purportedly required appeals to be filed as against all importers. According to the learned counsel, the present proceedings are vitiated by this discriminatory attitude. We hold that, in these appeals, the department has challenged the Commissioner's decision vis-à-vis the respondents and,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce oil, 3000 MT Nishant Import & Export Co. LLC, UAE 1028 11-2-2000 11-2-2000 NIE/121/ 2000 dated 16-2-2000 4. Standard Ind. Ltd. Furnace oil, 2500 MT Nishant Import & Export Co. LLC, UAE 1029 11-2-2000 11-2-2000 NIE/115/ 2000 dated 11-2-2000 5. Shree International Trading Co. Furnace oil, 10000 MT G. Premjee Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Singapore 1030 9-2-2000 9-2-2000 GT/108/ 2000 dated 9-2-00 It is submitted that, in the case of Shree International Trading Co., the bill of lading was issued on 9-2-2000, but the Documentary Credit was shown therein to be issued on 15-2-2000, which is improbable (document at page 143 of the compilation). In respect of the same importer, it is furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can only be considered to be manipulated. According to him, the supplier of the goods had manipulated the date to help the importers declare a lesser price for the goods for evading Customs duty. The learned SDR has, in this manner, invited our attention to many of the documents in the compilation and has argued that the bills of lading produced by the importers are liable to be treated as manipulated. Reiterating the averments in the memo of appeals, the learned SDR submits that no copy of any contract was placed before the DRI by any of the importers. Therefore, according to him, it was not open to the learned Commissioner to accept the contractual price as the basis of valuation of the goods. It is submitted that, as per the internationa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e M/s. Coastal Wartsilla in respect of furnace oil imported in February 2000. The learned Commissioner preferred this contemporaneous import value to the PLATT price proposed in the show cause notice. Accordingly, it was directed that the amount of duty to be paid by M/s. Standard Industries Ltd., to be requantified. We find that this part of the Commissioner's order has been accepted by the department. The learned SDR has contended that the above valuation was accepted in the absence of documentary evidence of an agreed price between the above company and their supplier. It has been submitted that the situation is different for the other importers who had agreed on a fixed price with their suppliers. We note that, in respect of the other i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& 816/02. The value determined by the Commissioner in respect of M/s. Standard Industries Ltd. (C/812/02) is not challenged and the same also is sustainable. 9. In appeal C/815/02, the appellant wants a penalty to be imposed on the respondent, Shri Sri Narayan Baheti. We have already found the valuation of the goods to be in order. There is no question of confiscation or penalty in respect of any of the respondents including M/s. Standard Industries Ltd., respondent in appeal C/812/02. The Revenue, in this appeal, has prayed for imposition of fine and penalty on M/s. Standard Industries Ltd. This prayer is on the ground that the value declared by the said company was rejected and hence the company should be held to have misdeclared the v....