TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch of the importer's office and residence were conducted and several incriminating documents were recovered. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants drew our attention to a statement of Bills of Entry prepared by her. She submitted that out of 14 Bills of Entry filed between 24.11.2005 to 12.02.2007, demand in respect of 5 Bills of Entry was clearly time barred. These Bills of Entry were filed on 24.11.2005, 07.02.2006, 16.03.2006 and 12.04.2006 & 12.04.2006. The total revenue involved in respect of these five bills is Rs. 31,17,580/- and this demand cannot be sustained at all. 3. Learned A.R. submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta & Co [2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC)] . However we consider that consideration of this case for the purpose of limitation will have to be postponed to the final hearing stage since issue is very contentious and requires comparison of facts considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present case and also the applicability of provisions of Customs Act etc. which can be done at the time of final hearing. 4. The learned counsel also submitted that a corrigendum was issued by the Revenue after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng charges and even the expenses towards trip made to find possible buyers. Notes against these also mentioned loading of cargo on vessel on 06.11.2005, arrival of the vessel on 23.11.2005, clearance of the container on 02.12.2005, findings a serious customer, receipt of advance, packing of the materials and more importantly that Dilena, the supplier is making pressure to send the money to Shahid in Dubai. In the said document at the expenses it is mentioned that Rs. 5,57,000/- to Dilena through Shahid in Dubai and against the same a note - 'finally got the money and send' is made. The Bill of Entry No. 169696 dated 24.11.2005 for the first consignment imported was filed with declared invoice value of USD 3910 (C&F). The said Bill of Entry was assessed at Rs. 196638/- and an amount of Rs. 196638/- paid as duty. The duty amount shown in the document discussed above also is Rs. 196638/-, which confirms the fact that the entries found in the said document pertains to the first consignment covered by B/E No. 169696 dated 24.11.2005 of the noticee herein. The said document clearly evidences undervaluation of the consignment as well as routing of parallel payments through Dubai. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....numbers mentioned in the said fax i.e. 1698778, 3763240 and 3335679, it was found that the said consignment was cleared vide Bill of Entry no. 179694 dated 08.06.2006. In the said Bill of Entry the goods were declared as "betel nuts second quality - ungarbled" and the value as USD 11914 (C&F). Thus it would emerge that noticee had mis-declared both the nature of goods under import as well as the value involved. Incidentally the fax message also gives the seal number of each container, thus confirming the authenticity of details provided therein. 61. I find that another document recovered from the noticee's premises marked as Sl. No.20 to the mahazar dated 30.03.2007, in two pages titled 'Material Details of Container 22,23 & 24' and 'costing details' showed the container numbers (GLD 2267407, 3414220, IAMV), description of the items, weight per bag, number of bags of each type in the containers, net weight and code markings on the bags. "The 'costing details' showed the number of bags, invoice weight, actual weight, CIF rate in USD, exchange rate, CIF rate in Rupees, expenses which includes customs duty, clearing etc. and the godown rate in Rupees for each variet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be said that Revenue has been able to show that the actual transaction value i.e. the payment made for the consignments received to the exporter abroad is more than what was declared and excess amounts were transferred by other means. The fact that there was no evidence to show that exporter had received the money or the methodology followed for transfer of money and there is no evidence for that, does not mean that appellant had not paid excess amount in addition to what was declared to the customs department. If all the transactions were to be recorded and kept available for recovery, by the officers, investigating officers work would have been very simple. The evidence can never be 100% accurate or there can never be 100% proof. In our opinion, the department has been above to show that transaction value was more than what was declared by producing supporting evidences and by applying principle of preponderance of probability it can be definitely stated that the transaction value was more than what was declared. As regards valuation, once transaction value is available, the question of resorting to contemporaneous value does not arise. In view of the above we consider that the....