TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Applicomp (India) Ltd., Survey Nos. 6-11, Krishnasagara Village, Attibele, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 562107 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" or "the applicant co.") 4668/2015 30-3-2015 2. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 1' or 'the VIL") 4669/2015 30-3-2015 3. M/s. Century Appliances (hereinafter referred to as "the co-applicant No. 2") 4670/2015 30-3-2015 4. M/s. TGDC Guandong Display Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the co-applicant no. 3') 4671/2015 30-3-2015 5. Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 4') 4672/2015 30-3-2015 6. Sh. Rajendra Kedarnath Bang (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 5') 4673/2015 30-3-2015 7. Sh. Abhijit Ramakant Kotnis (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 6') 4674/2015 30-3-2015 8. Sh. Mahadevan Vishwanathan (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 7') 4675/2015 30-3-2015 9. Sh. Mukund Dattatray Badwe (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 8') 4676/2015 30-3-2015 10. M/s. Kail Ltd., Survey Nos. 6-11, Kr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RI gathered some intelligence that M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. (the co-applicant No. 1) in association with its group/associate companies are indulging in evasion of payment of Anti-Dumping Duty (in short 'ADD') on the import of 14" and 21" Coloured Picture Tube (in short 'CPT'), by artificially enhancing the assessable value of the imported goods. 3. Accordingly, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, which revealed that co-applicant No. 1 was having registered office at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, and manufacturing facilities at Aurangabad (Maharashtra), Bharuch (Gujarat) and Shahjahanpur (Rajasthan). They along with their group/associate companies, are engaged in the manufacture of various consumer electronic products, including colour televisions. They were also importing amongst many other items, the CPTs of various types to be used in the manufacture of colour television. It was further revealed that they were resorting to deliberate over-valuation in import of 14" & 21" CPTs from M/s. TGDC Guangdong Display Co. Ltd., China and M/s. TTD International Ltd., Hong Kong to evade payment of the ADD payable on import of CPTs from certain producers and exporters in specified co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue prescribed in the ADD Notification, holding it out as unrelated transaction value by suppressing the relationship between the suppliers and the importers. Adopting such modus operandi, they continued to import the goods in India. However, the ADD which was supposed to be paid to the Govt. exchequer was transferred to the suppliers who were their own group/associate companies. 8. The role of co-applicant as allegation in the SCN is as under :- 8.1 Sh. Abhijit Ramakant Kotnis (the co-applicant Nos. 6, 9, 15 and 20) : It has been alleged that being the Vice-President (Chief Procurement Officer) of M/s. VIL, he was incharge of material procurement activities related to M/s. VIL and its group/associate companies and he was aware that the import price of 21" CPTs was fixed on approval from the promoters Sh. P.N. Dhoot. He had accepted that the final decision regarding export/selling price of CPTs from M/s. TGDC & M/s. TTD to M/s. VIL and its group/associate companies in India, rested with Sh. V.N. Dhoot only, as both M/s. TGDC & M/s. TTD were controlled by him. Hence, he was aware the declared value was not the correct value and was artificially manipulated to evade ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold the same to the applicant No. 1 on high sea sale basis and was a part of the conspiracy to evade payment of ADD. 8.8 The co-applicant No. 3 being the supplier of the CPTs, had in collusion with M/s. VIL and the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 have allowed to issuance of invoices showing a higher value for the imported goods and hence become a party to the conspiracy hatched to evade the payment of ADD. 9. The ADD so evaded by the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 and VIL has been calculated in the SCN, as under :- Sr. No. Name of the importer Port of import Ref. to Annexure Declared Assessable Value (Rs.) Re-determined Assessable Value (Rs.) ADD (Rs.) Adjudicating Authority (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. ICD, Waluj-Aurangabad A1, A2 & A3 6341503363 5052424678 1273011092 Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Aurangabad Commissionerate N-5, Town Centre, CIDCO Aurangabad-431030 2(i) M/s. Applicomp (India) Ltd. ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore B1 & B2 152581213 124811530 25711406 Commissioner of Customs, C.R. Building, Queen's Road, P.B. No. 5400, B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom prosecution. 11.1 The applicant No. 1 in their settlement application submitted bills of entry-wise statement of the goods cleared, by them from different ports as well as differential duty arrived by them. It was further mentioned that the applicant are a public limited company registered tinder the Companies Act, 1956 with having their own registered offices; that they are engaged in the import, manufacturing and making of consumer electronic and household appliances, hence they are judicial persons having their own existence; that the present dispute pertain to the imports made by them directly from the foreign suppliers as well as goods purchased on high sea sale basis from the other applicants, for which they have paid high sea sales commission to the respective sellers; that as the goods under dispute imported prior to the amendment of Section 17 of the Act and the same have been physically examined by the proper officer before allowing clearance for home consumption, the proposed re-assessment of the same, in the SCN, is against the laid down provisions of review and appeal as provided in the Act, however, the applicant admitted the duty liability as calculated i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of other applicants before the Commission, in absence of M/s. Videocon India Ltd. In view of the same it was decided as to whether the applications may be allowed to be proceeded with or not. 14. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for hearing for deciding upon the admissibility. Hearing for admission in this case took place on 12-5-2015, 14-7-2015, 7-8-2015 and 9-9-2015. The case was admitted vide Admission Order F. Nos. A-877-903/CUS/2015-SC9PB), dated 16-12-2015. 15. The first hearing in this case was fixed on 7-1-2016. Since, the applicant has requested to postpone the hearing, the same was re-fixed on 4-2-2016. On 4-2-2016, Shri Yatinder Singh, Director and Shri Vinod Kumar Bohra, Company Secretary appeared for M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. Shri Devender Singh, Advocate appeared for M/s. Kail Limited and M/s. Sky Appliances. Shri V.R. Shambhu, General Manager appeared for M/s. Millennium Appliances India Ltd. Shri K.M. Mondal Spl. Counsel and Shri K.M. Gujanan, SIO, DRI appeared for the Revenue. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and co-applicants requested the Bench that since their senior counsel is not available today hence, the case may be adjo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; As per the SCN, it has been established on record that the importers and the suppliers of the goods are related parties in terms of Rule 2(2)(IV), (V), (VI) & (VII) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. This has reference to Para 11.2 of the SCN. (iv) Although the applicants have stated before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission that they are not contesting the allegations contained in the SCN, the fact remains that in their original applications, they have not admitted over-valuation of the goods imported, nor have they disclosed the fact of their relationship with their overseas suppliers. They have also not filed any revised application(s) making a full and true disclosure of additional duty liability. There is also no Affidavit filed in this regard. Viewed from this angle, it can be safely said that there is no full and true disclosure of their additional duty liability. Therefore, the applications deserve to be rejected. (v) It is claimed by the applicant, M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. that during the investigation, due to alleged pressure from the DRI, M/s. VIL made deposit of Rs. 5 crores on its behalf. This is contrary to the fa....