TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kash, partner of M/s. Reva Technology under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved of the same the appellants are before us. 3. The facts relevant to the case are, briefly, as follows : 3.1 Acting on intelligence that Customs duty is being evaded by misdeclaring the country of origin and undervaluation of goods, container No. CAXU-8067540 was detained and on examination it was found to contain measuring tapes and the Bill of Entry filed for the said consignment being 341446, dated 22-12-2009 and the importer was found to be M/s. Krish International, Mumbai. M/s. Krish International submitted a pamphlet of M/s. Adikem Petangor SDN BHD, Malaysia as the manufacturer of the goods under import. However, enquiries made about the foreign manufacturer revealed that there was no such firm in Malaysia. The goods imported under the said container were detained and it was found that they were measuring tapes bearing brand names 'COLT', 'ZOOM' and 'MARKSMAN'. 3.2 A market survey was conducted in respect of the price at which these goods are sold and the market survey revealed that the goods under import were heavily undervalued by the importer, M/s. Krish Internati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19,531/-, after accounting for trade margins, duties and taxes, etc. and the actual duty payable was Rs. 1,18,24,532/-. Thus, the differential duty payable by the appellant was determined at Rs. 1,00,45,588/-. Since the country of origin was found to be China, anti-dumping duty on these goods were also leviable and in respect of the same Bills of Entry, anti-dumping duty was quantified at Rs. 3,80,17,585/-. 3.3 On completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 23-5-2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to redetermine the assessable value as declared above and also demanding differential duty as well as anti-dumping duty on the imports undertaken by the appellant apart from proposing penalties. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the duty demands were confirmed and penalties imposed as mentioned above. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions : 4.1 The entire investigation started based on an alert circular issued by the Director General Valuation and as per the said circular dated 25-3-2009 in respect of some categories of measuring tapes impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were of Chinese origin and the said goods were alleged to have been manufactured by M/s. Adikem Petangor SDN BHD of Malaysia. After considering the various evidences, the adjudicating authority in the said case had held that the investigating agency could not prove that the country of origin of the impugned goods was China and hence at this stage, no anti-dumping duty could be imposed on the goods. The ratio of the said decision would apply with equal force in the case of the present appellants also. He further submits that the measuring tapes having the same brand name have been manufactured in Malaysia and imported through ICD Jodhpur which shows that the goods were manufactured in Malaysia and the Malaysian Chamber of Commerce had issued a certificate of origin stating that the goods were of Malaysian origin and the goods were exported through the Port in Malaysia. Thus, these imports which are contemporaneous to those undertaken by the appellant would clearly reveal that the goods under import were of Malaysian origin and not of Chinese origin. They had also given details of imports of measuring tapes of similar nature imported through Bombay Customs of Japanese and Taiwanese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments of the counsels for the appellants. He submits that according to the appellant, the goods were manufactured in Malaysia and the name of the manufacturer was informed to the Customs authorities by the appellant. On verification, it was found that M/s. Adikem Petangor SDN BHD did not exist in Malaysia and, therefore, the claim of the appellant that the goods are of Malaysian origin is not sustainable. It is his further contention that M/s. Reva Technologies LLC, Dubai is not a dealer in measuring tapes and is found to be a dealer in electronic goods. If that be so, the declaration made about the country of origin made in the invoices issued by M/s. Reva Technologies LLC, Dubai is without any acceptable basis with regard to the country of origin. He also points out that as per two of the alleged buyers, namely, Shri Sharad Doshi of M/s. Sharad Enterprises and Shri Chetan Shah, proprietor of Sona Tool Traders, in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, they have admitted that, as per their knowledge these goods were of Chinese origin. They have not retracted the statements at any point of time. Only at the time of the cross-examination, they have changed t....