TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by appellant. M/s Technical Associates Ltd and other consequential detriments imposed under Customs Act, 1962. The matter had been carried to the Tribunal on an earlier occasion and had been remanded to enable the noticees to be heard afresh after setting aside the order issued ex parte. 2. The differential duty arose from the finding in the impugned order that the appellant had attempted to pass off 'secondary/defective cold rolled grain oriented steel sheet coils' as 'prime cold rolled grain oriented steel sheet coils' and thus claimed ineligible concessional rate of import duty prescribed in notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002. Appellant is a manufacturer of 'electrical transformers' and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inexpert visual inspection has been relied upon to conclude that these goods are secondary, that the statements recorded during the investigations had been misconstrued as admission of misrepresentation by the adjudicating authority and that request of importer for drawal of samples and testing had not been acceded to. 5. Learned Authorised Representative urged upholding of the impugned order in view of the admissions made by various persons, including the customs house agent, in statements recorded during the course of investigations. This, according to him, was sufficient in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concessional rate of duty. 7. That the imported goods are classifiable under heading 72251100 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is not in dispute; it is merely the appropriateness of the assertion that these are 'secondary/defective' that is and that dispute revolves around the denial of the benefit of notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002. The distinction between the prime and secondary is not defined in the notification. In such situations, it should be the common trade parlance that should enable distinguishment and we note that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order have even glanced in that direction. It is evident from standing order no. 62/2009 dated 21st December 2009 of Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reflected in the prices. A presumption of upgraded misdeclaration also carries with it the appropriateness of the declared value. No case has been made out by Revenue that the goods were underinvoiced against the benchmark of prices of prime steel sheet coils as to warrant a suspicion of such upgraded declaration. Empirically, and from the contents of the notice, it would appear that the declared value is appropriate to prime goods. For a legally valid assessment of duty, there can be no escapement from a downward revision in the assessable value of the imported goods. That is the inevitable consequence of misdeclaration and consequent rejection of declared value. Revenue cannot have its cake and eat it too. If the goods are secondary, the....