TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mining the consignment, the Customs Authorities were of the opinion that there was mis-declaration in the quantity of goods since 578 rolls of the material were found as against 577 rolls, declared the Bill of Entry. It further appeared that the goods were mis-declared in terms of value also. To probe the matter further, searches were conducted on 20.08.2015 at the business premises of the importer, residence of the proprietor as well as other connected premises. During the search, one laptop as well as mobile phone found was recovered and the data contained therein was retrieved and printed through panchnama proceedings on 24.082015 and 27.08.2015 in the presence of witnesses as well as S/Shri Sumit Chawla and Rajiv Chawla, the concerned p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reflective Sheeting (Size 1.24*45.7 m) Grade B 66,9048 Reflective Sheeting (Size 665*91.4 m) Grade B 64.171 4 PVC Self Adhesive Tape with pet release (size 45.7m*1.27) 32.70 1207X dated 17.02.2013 8513918 dated 08.03.2013 2. Shri Sumit Chawla further admitted in his statement dated 19.01.2016 that the differential amount, over and above declared in the bills of entry, was remitted in Indian currency to the representative of supplier through un-official channels. 3. The goods covered by the current bill of entry were provisionally released to the appellant and on conclusion of investigation, SCN dated 11.08.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding the differential customs duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoices/commercial invoices cannot be applied to past imports. In particular, the 32 import consignments are spread-over a period of two years and four months which have been re-valued on the basis of evidence of December, 2013. This is improper since these invoices cannot be used to recover a period of more than 90 days vi) They also relied on various case laws, to the effect that transaction value is required to be accepted. 5. With the above background, we heard Shri Prabhat Kumar, ld Advocate, representing the appellant. He explained the facts of the case as well as various grounds of appeal, in detail. 6. We also heard Shri R.K. Manjhi, ld DR on behalf of the Revenue. He submitted that the original invoices/commercial in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Sumit Chawla son of proprietor, he admitted that many of the past consignments were under valued and that the documents recovered from the electronic devices pertain to the consignments imported earlier by the appellant. Accordingly, the department proceeded to demand differential duty in respect of goods imported earlier by the appellant and covered by 32 bills of entry. The present appeal challenges the demand for differential duty and imposition of penalties, levied by the impugned order. 8. In the main grounds of the present appeal, it has been argued that transaction value was required to be accepted in the absence of evidence produced by Revenue of contemporaneous import of identical/similar goods. The appellant has argued that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction value of goods imported under the 32 Bills of Entry, in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. In fact, Explanation (f) to Rule 12 ibid specifically provides for rejection of the transaction value in the case of fraud or manipulated documents as in the present case. 11. The appellant has raised objections to the admissibility of the documents recovered from the laptop. They have cited the provisions of Section 138C of the Customs Act. We find such objections without basis in as much as the truth of the documents printed-out from the laptop has been admitted by Shri Sumit Chawla son of the proprietor in clear terms. Further, their clear admission by him that these invoices recovered, reflect the correct valuation ....