TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, were in receipt of intelligence that the respondent had filed the said bill of entry by misdeclaring the goods in terms of the required specifications and their description. On examination it was found that the imported goods were "wiretek" brand cables and connectors for computers, and the respondents have only declared two items namely cables and connectors and had deliberately not declared / suppressed the brand name/ length of the cables, specifications etc. The investigation further revealed that Shri Dinesh D. Bajaj, proprietor of the respondent firm, had given in his voluntary statement dated 20-08-2003, 23-09-2003 and 08-10-2003 wherein he had stated that it was under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the full description and other required specifications was emphatically denied. The further allegation that there has been evasion of payment of duty was denied by stating that the said allegations were unsustainable as they were decided without specifying what has not been declared/ what are the specifications have not been made known; that there was no material even of probative value to sustain the allegation of misdeclaration of value and of the goods; that the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was, what was found during the course of examination and merely by not declaring the part number or the length of cables would not amount to misdeclaration/non-declaration; that there was no special relationship, that the proposal to adopt Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... differential duty of Rs. 4,13,158/- was appropriated against the amount of Rs. 5,06,222/-. The goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/S 125 of the said Act. A penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed U/S 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The authority had framed the following two issues to be decided: a) Status of statement which was used as a basis for rejecting the declared value and determining the value. b) The methodology of valuation The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the respondent herein had sought to retract h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Prasant Glass Works (P) Ltd., Vs. Collector 1996 (87) ELT 518 (Tri.) has held that the proposition that the transaction value as shown in the invoice has some sanctity and the burden is on the Department to collect evidence to show that the invoice value is not genuine or below ordinary price in International Trade at the time and place of import cannot be applied to cases of import where the description is substantially inadequate, incomplete or erroneous and in such cases, the question of accepting transaction value does not arise. The Tribunal in the above case further indicated that the Bill of Entry must refer to description of the goods and the description is complete and adequate if it refers to the correct specification, brand na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. It was further ascertained that there was a comparison with the market values of similar goods and the value declared by the respondent herein was on the lesser side. We find that there has been a voluntary statement in which the prop had accepted that he had not declared the actual specifications with a view to pay lesser amount of duty and it was only under his instructions that the supplier had not given any specifications in the import documents. The Ld Counsel for the respondent had stated that on receipt of the show cause notice there was a denial on the allegation of misdeclaration of value and the goods. We find that the retraction was not made in the instant case and in the rebuttal to the allegations contained in the show caus....