Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (9) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-declaring the value of imports. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are as follows. M/s. Sangeeta Metal (India) (Sangeeta in short) imported 21 consignments of stainless steel coils/sheets from M/s. Dai Ichi, USA, during the period November 2005 to November, 2006. The goods originated from Finland and were directly supplied to the appellant in India. Of the 21 consignments, in respect of 13 consignments Shri Amulakh Shah of Goodluck Metal Corporation was the Commission Agent. Evidence of undervaluation was retrieved from the computer of Goodluck Metal Corporation where Shri Amulakh Shah was the partner. Evidence of undervaluation in respect of the balance 8 consignments was received from Antwerp Customs (port of loading) through the Indian Embassy at Brussels. These evidences indicated that the total amount of customs duty sought to be evaded worked out to Rs. 1,40,41,018.42. The fact of undervaluation was also admitted by Arun Kalidas Shah, the partner of the importing firm and Amulakh Vardichand Shah of M/s. Goodluck Metal Corporation, the Commission Agent, in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en in the export declarations and the statements/computer print outs, the best method of valuation that should have been adopted is by way of contemporaneous imports as envisaged under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, adopting the lowest contemporaneous value. 3.6 Wrong exchange rates have been adopted for computing the values and while calculating the differential duty demand, which were pointed out during the adjudication proceedings. However, the adjudicating authority has not considered these submissions. In respect of B/E No. 97728, dated 28-11-2006, the actual quantity imported is 16.130 MTs while the demand has been made taking the quantity as 22.920 MTs. Thus, there are many errors in the computation of duty demand. Therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for correct determination of duty demand taking into account the various submissions made by the appellant. 4. The ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue re-iterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the computer print outs retrieved from the computer maintained by the Commission agent clearly shows the difference between the val....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal statement given before a Gazetted Officer of Customs under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a valid piece of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940 = 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.)] and a lot of other decisions. Further in K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - "In a criminal trial punishable under the provisions of the IPC, it is now well settled legal position that confession can form the sole basis for conviction. If it is retracted, it must first be tested whether confession is voluntary and truthful inculpating the accused in the commission of the crime. Confession is one of the species of admission dealt with under Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Section 164 of the Code." The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Govindasamy Raghupathy [1998 (98) E.L.T. 50 (Mad.)] and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Systems & Components [2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.)] have held that - "It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved". If we apply the ratio of these decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot in dispute that the goods were loaded at Antwerp in containers which were consigned directly to India. It is not the case of the appellant that these containers were opened anywhere in between before their arrival in India or the goods were replaced. The port declarations at Antwerp not only contains the value of the goods supplied but also the description (both quantity and grade) of the goods supplied. If the export declarations can be adopted for determination of value, they can also be relied upon for the description of the goods supplied also. In other words, what the appellant received was goods of the grade specified in the export declarations. Thus the inference is that the appellant misdeclared the grade of the goods also in the B/Es filed before the Indian Customs. If duty evasion can be resorted to by misdeclaration of value, the same can be done by misdeclaring the grades of the goods received. The appellant having admitted to evasion of duty cannot take the plea that he indulged in misdeclaration of only the value and not quality of the goods. Therefore, the question of making any adjustment in the assessable value on the basis of variation in the grades or any othe....