TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and has examined the goods on 12.1.2012 on the reasonable belief that the goods are highly undervalued at US$ 0.7 per Mtr. when compared to US$ 2.36 per Mtr of contemporaneous imports from China. Immediately the goods were seized under a valid mahazar. On completion of the investigation and recording of various statements, SCN dt. 6.7.2012 was issued to the appellant for confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) and rejection of declared value demanding duty on the redetermined value and for imposition of penalty. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin after following the principles of natural justice in his order rejected the declared value of US$ 0.7 per Mtr on the imported goods and re-determined the value of US$ 1.05 per meter under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and also ordered for payment of duty of Rs. 69,61,352/-. He confiscated the goods covered under Bill of Entry No.5449215 dt. 13.12.2011 under Section 111 (m) and also imposed penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Proprietor of appellant company under Section 112A of the Customs Act. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Senior A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs CC Mumbai 2000 (132) ELT 321 (SC) 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R for Revenue reiterated the findings of OIO and investigation report. She referred to copy of invoice extracted at page 56.The date of invoice is 10.11.2011 and also drew our attention to comparable invoice at page 44. She referred to mahazar for seizure of the goods annexed at page 51 & 52 and submits that the goods imported are polyester knitted fabrics whereas the appellant declared the goods as "Polyester Fabrics" whereas on examination the goods were found to be "Polyester Suiting Fabrics". She referred to para-22 of the OIO and also relied the statement of proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari annexed at page 65, 66 wherein he has admitted that price of comparable goods shown to him is between US$ 2.2 and US$ 3.5 per kg. and admitted that "he offered his price of US$ 0.70 per metre (US$ 2.1 per kg)" and the supplier accepted to supply the fabrics at the above price. She submits that value of suiting material is higher than general polyester fabrics. She relied invoice dt. 6.9.2011 of M/s.Shaoxing Mina Textile Co. Ltd., China annexed at page 53 where the contemporaneous goods were imported at the price of US$ 1.32 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case. 8. On the merits of the case, we find the appellant is engaged in trading of imported fabrics and imported "Polyester Dyed Woven Fabrics" from China. Appellant's contention is that contemporaneous imports relied by Revenue in the case of Bill of Entry No.6800547 dt. 11.5.2012 of M/s.ICON Fibers and Fabrics P. Ltd., Mumbai is not comparable. In this regard, we find that the impugned goods and the comparable goods were originated from China and shipment made from M/s.Shaoxing Mina Textile Co. Ltd., China in and around the same time and the date of shipment of both consignments are dt. 29.10.2011 and 11.11.2011 respectively. The appellant is also a trader and purchased the goods from supplier who is also a trader which is similar to evidence relied by Revenue. We find that appellant failed to produce any evidence of purchase order and terms and conditions of sale and manufacturers invoice before the Commissioner of Customs. In the absence of any evidence, we do not find any justification on the appellants argument that when compared to contemporaneous imports, the impugned goods were declared at US$ 0.70 per mtr., whereas the international price of "Polyester Woven Fabrics" i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we rely Honble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CC Mumbai Vs ShiBani Engg. System (supra). The relevant paragraph of the Supreme Court order is reproduced as under :- "10. In our view, the Tribunal mis-directed itself. There is no question of reading the word and disjunctively here. The Exemption Notification must be read plainly, as an ordinary man would read it, and, so read, Sl. No. 6(a) says that cups of roller bearings are liable to the duty applicable to the bearings of which they are part and cones of roller bearings are liable to the rate of duty applicable to the bearings of which they are part. There is no justification for reading the entry conjunctively in the sense that the rate of duty applicable to the bearings of which they are part will apply only when the cups and cones of roller bearings are imported together but not if they are imported separately. 11. Insofar as valuation is concerned, the Collector was right in rejecting the transaction value of the goods because, plainly, it was a totally unrealistic value. For the purpose of placing a value on the goods, however, the Collector resorted to very tenuous reasoning which we cannot uphold. At the sam....