TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tools from M/s. Dana Corporation and they have entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s. Dana Corporation. They filed Bill of Entry No.592329 dated 29.3.2004 through their CHA M/s. Passage Cargo Pvt. Ltd. for clearance of the following items. Invoice No. & Date Description of the item Value UL 83615 dt.22.3.04 Allen Drill Head Broach Fixture Cutter Tool USD 10,000 UL 83606 dt.18.3.04 End Yoke Assembly USD 557.40 UL 83601 dt.17.3.04 Slinger USD 18.75 The total assessable value of Rs.5,97,643.46. 2.1 On the basis of the invoices filed by the appellant, Bill of Entry was assessed on 29.3.2004. The Bill of Entry was allowed clearance under green channel facility. However, before the clearance of the goods at the importer shed, the Superintendent asked the CHA to produce the original invoice, which was not produced. The Assistant Commissioner denied the green channel facility and ordered for open examination. On opening the packages, one invoice No.83615 dated 22.3.2004 and one document marked as Annexure AA were found. These goods were found against Invoice No. UL 83615 dated 22.3.2004. On perusal of the same, it was noticed that the value of the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a notional value of US $ 10,000/- does not appear to be acceptable as there is huge difference between value declared and actual invoice value. Further, the reply of the importer that the value of US $ 10,000/- has been authenticated by the supplier as US $ 10,000/- is also not acceptable inasmuch as the invoice No. UL 83615 was dated 22.3.04 and the certificate was issued on 8.4.04 which is much later than the date of the invoice. After seeing these discrepancies, the Joint Commissioner ordered for re-inspection of the goods and value appraiser by a local Chartered Engineer in the presence of CHA/importer. Thereafter Shri Garuda Prasad, Chartered Engineer in the presence of the customs officer, importer and CHA assessed the value of the goods and it was assessed at Rs. 40,48,301/-. After the goods were appraised by the Chartered Engineer, it was found that the importer has undervalued the goods and has mis-declared the value of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry 592329 dated 29.3.2004 and also failed to declared secondhand entry of the goods and suppressed the facts from the Department which makes the goods liable for confiscation and importer is also liable for penalty under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who is a related person for supply for plant and machinery and for which they have to make the payment on a credit basis. The goods under importation are part and parcel of that plant and machinery for which they would be making the payment subsequently. Therefore the declaration given in the Invoice that they have been supplied free of charge is totally wrong and amounts to a misdeclaration on the part of the importer. The party was well aware that the foreign Chartered Engineer had evaluated these goods for a value of US$1,94,600 and the invoice given by the Foreign supplier also indicated the same value in respect of 8 items of import. However, in the copy of the invoice given to the Customs department, they have shown a value of US$10000 and as admitted by the party, this has been done by the foreign supplier as per the instructions of the importer. Thus they have no correlation to the actual value of the goods supplied. This fact was very well known to the importer as they had the foreign supplier's original invoice as also the foreign Chartered Engineer's Certificate with them. Merely because, they are a 100% EOU and are entitled for importation of capital goods duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plant and machinery supplied or to be supplied by the foreign supplier. Thus the attendant circumstances reveal that the price declared in the invoice has been influenced by the relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier and therefore under Rule 4(3)(a), the transaction value cannot be accepted. 24. The importer has not produced/submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the declared value of the goods being valued closely approximate to either the transaction value of identical goods or of similar goods in sales to unrelated buyers in India or deductive value of similar goods or identical goods or the computed value for identical goods or similar goods. In the absence of any such evidence, adduced by the importer, the transaction value of US$10000 declared by them is liable to be rejected and I hold accordingly. 25. To determine the transaction value, one has to proceed sequentially through Rule 5, 6 & 7 of the Customs Valuation rules, 1988. For this purpose, the value of identical goods or similar goods have to be known. In th instant case, this being a specified or customized import of the importer, no such values are available and hence application of Rul....