TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., South Korea. On verification of group samples and documents, it was found that the group samples are not as per the declaration; the description of the goods, value of the goods, terms of payment, packing and date mentioned in the Proforma invoice and commercial invoice are varied and the value of insurance covered in policy enclosed with the said B.E is tallied with the value shown in the proforma invoice and not tallied with commercial invoice. Therefore the samples were drawn and sent for analysis to ascertain composition and nature of fabrics. In the test reports for the samples drawn, it was reported that the coloured knitted fabrics which are designed and decorated with metalised particles, are made out of metalised polyester strips....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscation and imposition of penalty. 2. The appellants defended the show cause notice stating the following contentions:- (i) The mode of payment as DP and TT meant that the sale would be accepted only if they made the payment through Telegraphic Transfer (TT) on the documents being produced (D/P) to them; (ii) the name of GYGIMI mentioned in the Performa invoice was only the trade name of the goods and did not depict the nature or character of the goods; (iii) in the commercial invoice the supplier described the correct nature of the goods as Polyester Knitted Fabrics ; (iv) since their transaction was quite clear without any malafides, they forwarded all the documents received by them from their supplier for the clearance of the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mporaneous value of similar goods; (xv) That the supplier M/s. Yong Ho Knit Co. Ltd. Korea has given a letter dated 26.5.2006 explaining the difference in the proforma invoice and asserting that they have paid only USD 4848 to the appellant. The appellant also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Karn Vir Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin 1998 (97) ELT 42 (Ker.); Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (62) ELT 730 and Sai Impex vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (62) ELT 616. 3. After adjudication, the original authority redetermined the value of the goods as USD 59845.30 (Rs.27,64,853/- CIF) and classified the goods to be under CTH 60063300. The goods were confiscated and an option was given to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention to mis-declare the goods or evade payment of duty. (v) The adjudicating authority has placed reliance on the amounts stated in the proforma invoice, even after the commercial invoice was filed and a certificate was produced from the banker to establish the amounts paid to the supplier. Further that the Commissioner has not brought forth any contemporaneous value in order to enhance the value of the goods. That therefore the enhancement is arbitrary and not sustainable. 5. Against this, the learned AR Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that on test report, it was established that the goods are made out of metalized polyester strips and therefore the description of the goods as well as....