AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Frontlit and Flex Sheeting Backlit from M/s. Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd., Taiwan declaring the price as US$ 1100 PMT and US$ 1200 PMT respectively. On examination of the goods the following was noticed - (a) Goods were found to be of Star Flex brand made in Korea as against unbranded as declared in the Bill of Entry. (b) 2052 rolls Flex were found as against the declared 2044 rolls. Doubting the declared transaction value, the department obtained a quotation from M/s.Max Flex & Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. From the quotation of retail sale prices, the assessable value was worked out to be US$2520 and US$ 3520 PMT respectively. The differential duty was determined to be Rs. 15,15,319/-. The proprietor S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 9 (S.C.) iii) Commissioner of Customs, Vishkhapatnam Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 641 (S.C.) He stressed the supplier of the goods was merely a Distributor. The appellant in his letter to Assistant Commissioner of Customs dt. 26.6.2008 had submitted a copy of the Sales contract with the supplier/distributor, commercial invoice of the manufacturer from Korea to their supplier which shows the invoice values to be US$ 1100 and US$ 1200 PMT respectively of Frontlit/Backlit Sheeting as well as the copy of the LC opened by the supplier on Korean manfuacturer, and copy of letter from supplier that they are an order booking agent for the Korean Co. and get commission from the Korean Co. With these d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, New Delhi Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin 1986 (23) ELT 507 (Tribunal). He mentioned that the department refused cross-examination of the company which gave the quotation. 4. Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the adjudication order. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made. It is indeed surprising that the whole case has been made on the basis of one quotation. The value has been determined by proceeding sequentially through the Valuation Rules. No contemporaneous data was available. Therefore, as the value could not be determined under Rules 4,5,7 & 8, resort was made to Rule 9 residual method. And as a residual method, by way of best judgment the quotation has been made the basis. We have seen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Flex & Imaging System Pvt. Ltd. but the same was denied unjustifiably. Commissioner has brushed away this plea by relying on judgments which are unrelated to the facts in this case. He has missed the crucial point that cross-examination of Max Flex was sought and not of Sanjay Agarwal. The Ld. Advocate has correctly relied on judgments referred to in para 3 above. 5.1. The appellant submitted sales invoices in respect of goods imported by them but these documents were not considered appropriately and no cogent reason was given to discard the value shown in these invoices. Even the VAT return filed with Sales Tax authorities was not considered. A mere quotation is vastly different from commercial invoice in the eyes of law. Thus, we find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpreting the Valuation Law. 7. The only other evidence on the basis of which undervaluation is sought to be established is the statement of the Proprietor. We find that the statement was also retracted in August 2008 but the department did not issue any rebuttal on the retraction. It has been held by the Tribunal that although the statements under Section 108 are admissible in evidence, their evidentiary value has to be gauged in the circumstances of the case as held in Orient Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs 1986 (23) ELT 507 which is a decision of three Member Bench. In the present case, we find that the evidence in the form of the quotation is not reliable and, therefore, the statement recorded is not supported by any evidence. ....