2017 (12) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.CHANGZOHU HUAWEI REFLECTIVE MATERIAL CO. Ltd., China to the appellant under Invoice No.HWISEL032 dated 26.12.2009. On the basis of information that the said consignment was misdeclared in terms of description and value, the consignment was examined by the Customs Officers in the presence of representative of the appellant, Chartered Engineer and independent witnesses on 17.09.2010. On examination, the goods were found to be rolls of Reflective Sheeting of different colours packed in rectangular card boxes bearing brand name of 'TECHLITE'. The chartered engineer in his report dated 21.09.2009 gave the opinion that the sheet rolls are self-adhesive type rolls consisting of coloured self adhesive paper tape/coloured reflective sheets....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant have filed this appeal. 3. Ld.Advocate for the appellant submits that the Division Bench of this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the appellant in the case of M/s.Tanmay International, which was the basis for enhancing the value in the present appeal. He pleaded that since the facts are similar, the present appeal should also be allowed. He also relied on the following decisions: 1. Sur Gems Vs.CC, Mumbai-2014 (301) ELT - 429 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2. CC, New Delhi vs.Khushi Time Impex Pvt.Ltd.-2017 (348) ELT 691 3. Deepak Bansal Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2012 (279) ELT 066 (Tri.-Delhi) 4. Sara Electro Acoustics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ti Smuggling staff. However, no evidence to support this belief is coming forward from the impugned order. Hence, the charge of mis-declaration of description of the goods is not tenable in these circumstances. 6. As for the mis-declaration of the value, the case of the department is mainly dependent on imports made by M/s.Mukesh Enterprises and M/s. Tanmay International from the same supplier. In the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises, the basis was the confessional reply by the importer of goods Sh. Joginder Singh that goods were ordered by him from overseas supplier M/s.CHANGZOHU HUAWEI REFLECTIVE MATERIAL CO. Ltd., China at a value of USD 114 per roll under invoice no.HW-JBE012 dated 30.09.09, procured by the Economic Intelligence Bureau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Enterprises without putting them to notice, is not tenable because show cause notice issued in this case categorically contains reference to the valuation in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises and similarity of goods in both these cases. The contention of the appellant that Shri Joginder Singh, the main behind the imports in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises has admitted that he imported the goods in question to help some Customs Officers in New Delhi and to help some CEIB officers and to fix Sh. H.S.Chaddha he arranged a Proforma invoice for this consignment, is also not tenable in view of the categorical observation of the adjudicating authority in para 6 of the impugned order that matter in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises has been f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icient reason in view of Rule 12 to reject the invoice value. Accordingly adjudicating authority found that value of Fluorescent Tape is to be considered on the basis of the contemporaneous imports read with rule 9 and relying on the invoice No. HW-JBE 012 dt. 30.09.2009 issued by same supplier as in present case to M/s Mukesh Enterprises for 588 rolls of Reflective Sheeting and the market enquiry conducted by the SIIB, Customs House, Kolkata and after allowing abatement on the value with respect to duty element, margin of profit and other overheads, arrived at the assessable value of Rs. 58,95,360/- of the imported goods for the purpose of calculation of duty liability on the impugned goods in their case. The appellant No. 1 has objected t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncement value based on the proforma invoice which was the main foundation for enhancing the value in the adjudication order. Ld. AR was asked to produce the copy of the invoice relating to proforma invoice No. HW-JBE 012 dt. 30.09.2009 relied upon in the adjudication order. Ld. AR has submitted a copy of commercial invoice No. HW-JBE 012 dt. 30.09.2009 issued by M/s CHANGZHOUS HUAWEI REFLECTIVE MATERIAL CO. LTD, CHINA to M/s Mukesh Enterprises in which the unit price is US$ 15.00 per roll. He also produced the relevant bill of entry No. 155975 dt. 08.12.2009 in the name of Mukesh Enterprises in which the goods have been assessed the unit price 15.00 per roll. On being asked to show the actual invoices for the proforma invoices at the rate o....