TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the customs authorities, it was observed that not only the supplier was same and the consignments came through the same vessel, they were also shipped on board on the same day, i.e., 20.07.2002. Even the Bills of Lading for the three consignments were also issued on the same day, i.e. 20.07.2002. The invoice raised by the suppliers in respect of all the three consignments were again issued on the same day, i.e. 22.07.2002. 2) It so happened that an intelligence was received by DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, that certain electronic goods, namely, CD/VCD Hi-Fi Systems and Car Cassettes Players, were being imported in the guise of electronic components, namely, Tape Deck Mechanisms, Plastic moulded components and metal parts, Remote Control Units, populated PCBs etc. by certain traders. The intelligence also indicated that the importers were misdeclaring the description of the goods and also highly under-invoicing the same. Accordingly, the above three consignments imported by M/s. SM and M/s. ME, consisting of parts of electronic components for Car Cassette Player and Audio with Radio of Kenwood, Sony, Pioneer, Philips and Thomson brands, were taken up for investigation. Prima facie, it a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere required to be classified under CTH 8527.21 of the Customs Tariff Act; that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had opened the fictitious firms viz., M/s. Saumya Marketing and M/s. Mega Enterprises with an intention to defraud the Government exchequer and they deliberately mis-declared the particulars of goods and the value thereof; that the fact of misdeclaration of particulars of goods were further corroborated as the goods were supplied by same supplier, the invoices were numbered serially and were raised on the same day; that the goods were shipped on the same day in the same vessel; that the three Bills of Entries were filed on the same day by the same clearing agent; that the declared address of the owners of both M/s. Saumya Marketing and M/s. Mega Enterprises was identical; that the facts of the invoices clearly showed that the gods were nothing but complete functional items split up under three consignments by declaring the items as mere electronic parts and components. In view of the said factual position, which had come to light upon investigation, the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why: (i) the consignments imported under the above three Bills of Entry not cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,09,602/- in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and ordered to recover an amount of Rs. 37,95,206/- towards differential duty from the importer and/or respondent No.1. The learned Commissioner had also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on respondent No.1, Rs. 1,00,000/- each on respondent Nos.2 and 3 in terms of Section 112(a) of the Act. 8) In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Commissioner had recorded following findings:- (a) All the three statements given by respondent Nos.1 to 3 were voluntarily given before the investigating officers and the same were not retracted by them at any point of time. (b) In the instant case, the respondents deliberately imported the complete systems in the guise of parts/components so as to avoid duty by mis-declaring their value. Therefore, the transaction value could not be accepted and the same was rejected. (c) The reasons cited in the show cause notice for redetermination of value of the goods in terms of Valuation Rules 8 were correct and legally tenable. (d) Since the importers mis-declared the goods in respect of description and value they contravened the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointed out that there was no sufficient evidence/material produced on record, which not only formed part of the show cause notice but discussed in detail by the Commissioner in his order, which proved that what was, in fact, imported was complete sets of audio systems in dis-assembled conditions with a view to evade custom duties. He submitted that all these aspects are not even considered and looked into by the Tribunal which renders the judgment of the Tribunal totally erroneous in law. 12) After considering the matter, we find full justification in the said submissions made by Mr. Adhyaru. We have already taken note of the evidence that emerged during the investing and also the statements of the two purported proprietors of M/s. SM and M/s. ME as well as Mr. Trivedi, in some detail. Very material aspect which is glossed over by the Tribunal is that the technicians from the office of Thomson India as well as Phillips India were called who had inspected the goods in question and were able to assemble the systems from the parts imported by the respondent and make it functional. This was accomplished in the presence of panchas as well as Mr. A.K. Dham, Director of CHA. What was fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of import where description is substantially inadequate, incomplete description in cases where the goods are not inspected and checked may mislead customs officers and depending on the fact and circumstances it may indicate a deliberate design to suppress the true state of affairs. In such cases the invoice and the prices declared in the invoice will have very little weight an d the department is not required to show that the invoice price is defective and cannot be accepted; in such cases there is only the question of finding out the ordinary price in international trade at the time and place of import, for which any reasonable and reliable method can be followed." 16) We find that the material produced by the Department which is discussed above clearly proves that instant is a case where substantially 2 1997 (89) ELT A 197 inadequate and wrong descriptions were given in the import documents which gave right to the Revenue to correctly assess the goods. The transaction value, as disclosed by the importers, was doubtful and was rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. Further, even the declaration given in the Bills of Entries showing the goods as 'parts/components&#....