TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in appeal No.ASR-CUSTOMS-PVR-APP-26 TO 27, 13-14 DT. 26.02.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant no. 1 had imported Polyester Spun Yarn from China. The Revenue had information from their DRI office in Ahmedabad that the importers of this item were resorting to gross undervaluation. Searches were carried out at the residential premises of appellant no. 2 and the factory premises of appellant no. 1. In the latter search, 1,56,812 kg of imported yarn valued at market value of Rs. 2,14,42,089 approximately was detained under Section 110 of Customs Act 1962. The goods were sent for testing to Textile Committee Regional Laboratory, Ludhiana. Investigations were conducted. It was revealed that the majority of the imports were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as found in the searches in the factory and residential premises. He also submits that the case of department is based on e-mails/documents recovered from importers of similar goods located in Ahmadabad. He points out that the DRI alert was issued in July 2011 and the goods imported by the appellant were prior to DRI alert. He contended that DRI alert cannot be the basis of loading of the value as has been held by this Tribunal in the case of CC Vs. Artex Textiles Pvt. Ltd. FO No. A/1382-1390/13/CSTB/C-1 dt. 27.06.13. He also argued that there was no misdeclaration of description and quantity. He also relied on the following case laws in his support:- 1. CC Vs. Balaji International FO No.57593-57594/2013 CU DB dt. 25.07.2013, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per kg minimum; that the intelligence was further corroborated by the fact that Polyster Spun Yarn was manufactured out of Polyster staple fibre, the rate of which in the international market was not less than USD 2.0 per kg and that the value addition in manufacture of spun yarn from staple fibre was approximately 50 to 60 cent per kg." The unit price was thus enhanced the basis of aforesaid email of the supplier dated 04.12.10, which is reproduced below:- "Polyester Spun Yarn was quoted: From: [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 04,2010 9:13 AM To: Subject: the price of polyester spun yarn Dear: We are special manufacture in china, and we can supply polyeste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices. However, we find that loading has actually been done on the basis of proforma invoices and there are no parallel invoices. We also find that the goods were tested in the laboratory mentioned above and nothing adverse from testing is on record. The Department is interpreting admission by appellant no. 1 to enhance the value to US dollar 2.6 per kg. by the importer as evidence that the goods were undervalued. However, that enhancement was based on the email/proforma invoices and there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports as the basis to enhance the value. We find that, in the absence of actual contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, the email from DRI citing prices for different counts of yarn or the proforma invoic....