TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....description/quantity and Country of origin was found as declared in the Bill of Entry and the invoices etc. Thus, it was found that M/s Krunal Corporation of Rajkot, Gujarat have imported in all following electronic components from Singapore: - (1) National Integrated Circuits 318 Japan Origin - 600 pcs. (2) National Integrated Circuits 0800 Japan Origin - 1100 pcs. (3) National Integrated Circuits 818 Thailand Origin - 700 pcs. (4) National Integrated Circuits 2930 Malaysian Origin - 1035 pcs. (5) National Integrated Circuits 2931 Malaysian Origin - 1035 pcs. (6) Intersil Integrated Circuits 232 China Origin - 10000 pcs. (7) Intersil Integrated Circuits 7107 China Origin - 10000 pcs. (8) Intersil Integrated Circuits 7135 China Origin - 5000 pcs. (9) National Integrated Circuits 27C010 Korean Origin - 1089 pcs. (10) National Integrated Circuits 329 Malaysian Origin - 2000 pcs. (11) IRF Transistors 530 Mexico Origin - 10000 pcs. (12) IRF Transistors 640 Mexico Origin - 13500 pcs. (13) IRF Transistors 840 Mexico Origin - 12000 pcs. (14) IRF Transistors 150 Mexico....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of electronic components. Pursuant to import, the electronic components are sold by them to the traders and they maintained the purchase and sale records and they are assessed to Sales Tax. It was further claimed by the said appellant - Mangilal Ranka that he is actual importer and have financed the import under the Bill of Entry, in question. Further, Shri Ranka offered to pay differential duty on the basis of evidence collected by the Revenue and to furnish the Bond of actual value of the consignment. He confirmed that he is importer and/or financier of the goods imported in the name of M/s Krunal Corporation. Further, the Revenue enquired as to the contemporaneous prices of the electronic components seized and it was evident from the import invoice that IC of National Brand, Intersil Brand have been imported among others. The Revenue has made enquiry from the market from dealers and distributors of the similar goods and received the quotations. The Revenue has also enquired into some contemporaneous imports, recorded in para 36 and 39 of the Order-in-Original. 2.4 The Revenue felt that the importer has been unable to adduce any evidence to justify the declared transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner (Appeals) were that the value adopted by the Revenue is wrong. The appellants relied on the contemporaneous imports of the same items whereas the basis of valuation adopted by the Revenue was quotations which are only offer for sale and are not reliable. That, no proofs of additional payments were brought out in the investigation having been made by the appellant, for the imports of the goods in question. Further, the goods were already loaded and cleared in the original assessment, after filing of Bill of Entry and the Revenue has attempted to further load a second time without any corroboration for the same. It was also contended that Customs were still clearing the goods at the rate they were declared and the show-cause notice did not allege any differentiation in the items. 2.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and held that the Counsel, for the appellants has contended that the higher prices quoted by the dealers can at the most be taken as justification for higher prices billed by them for their sales to ultimate consumers. The question of billing at a higher price does not arise as the import of the goods has not been completed nor i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased on statements of Shri Jayesh V Turakhia and Shri Harish Turakhia and further suspicion was created as the appellant Shri Mangilal Ranka claimed the ownership of the said goods. The appellant had explained the circumstances for claiming the ownership in the fact that although he was only a financer, but as the goods were discovered by Jayesh Turakhia, in the facts and circumstances he had no other choice but to claim the ownership of the goods in question. 3.3 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot be a substitute of proof and that a case of undervaluation cannot be made out only on the basis of suspicion. It is further contended that in the course of examination by the DRI, the goods were found as per description in the Bill of Entry. The Customs authority failed in accepting the value as declared in the Bill of Entry, for the goods in question, imported by other importers. Tables running into 6 pages contained details of such contemporaneous import were placed on record in the adjudication proceedings pertaining to the period Jan, 04 to March, 04. The said examples of contemporaneous import were obtained from NID....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - 1998 (98) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it has been held that in case of under-valuation, burden is on Revenue to prove the charge based on evidence or the agreements and what needs to be examined is whether the Revenue have succeeded in showing that apparent is not the real and that the price shown in the invoices does not reflect the true sale price. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have further held that quantity discount is allowable and it is not unusual for foreign supplier to give a higher discount to an importer who is importing in much larger quantity. 3.8 The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Makalu Trading Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 622, wherein it has been held that in the case of contemporaneous import from different country of origin, the same cannot be treated as contemporaneous price and the decision of the Tribunal in enhancing the value is not sustainable in law. 3.9 The appellant further relies on the Division Bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Grover Impor....