TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant no. 1) and his statement was recorded on 16.12.2008 and 20.05.2009. Comparison of the prices declared in the Bills of Entry and the contract prices submitted by appellant no. 2 revealed that appellant no. 1 had mis-declared the value of Booster Pumps and Membranes at the time of filing of bill of entry. The appellant no. 2 admitted that he had arranged for invoices of lower value in connivance with the overseas suppliers namely, M/s. Micro Filter Co. Ltd., Korea, M/s. American RO, USA, M/s. AQ & Q Co. Taiwan, M/s. Aqua Winner International Co. Ltd., Taiwan & M/s. Triwin Watertech Co. Ltd. The appellant no.2 in his statements admitted that the differential amounts over and above the value declared to the Customs were paid to the suppliers in cash either through representatives of the overseas suppliers or by them whenever they went abroad. Appellant no. 2 voluntarily made a part payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards their duty liability on the past imports. Imports in case of 28 consignments of water purifiers and its parts were made by appellant no.1 through JNPT, Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad and Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai during the period 2006 to 2008 and the goods were underva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 to 01-12-2008 after final assessment of bill of entry by proper officer after due verification of all the documents as also by comparing the value at which the contemporaneous import of identical goods were taking place. Value was enhanced based on the price quotes obtained after 16-12-2008 after recording the statement of the partner of the appellant firm under threat of third degree treatment and arrest. The appellant firm has already submitted the proof in the form of details of bill of entries in respect of other importers where the value assessed by customs authority during the contemporaneous period was similar to the value at which our bill of entries are assessed and the Revenue has not shown any proof for the alleged undervaluation. 3.2. Learned Counsel further submitted that the investigation agency has not been able to adduce even a piece of evidence in support of undervaluation except the statement of the partner obtained by misguiding him, threatening him and luring him to sign to avoid his arrest and third degree treatment. The entire demand is based on trickery and misrepresentation of facts about the "Contract Price" by the investigating agency. Undervaluation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitting in our bank for enhancing the limits. (iv). In response, appellants had received a letter, without stating the currency, quoting the rates for items for which mail was requested and included one more item i.e. "Membrane 150 GPD". (v). However, on a further request, the exporter also sent a letter indicating the currency and deleting the 4th item from the quote (the same is produced at Page 124 of Appeal Memorandum). A comparison of these two different letters from this party make it abundantly clear that these were mere pieces of papers obtained under the pretext of bank finance and they were not the contract price at all for any actual import transaction by appellants. 3.4 Learned Counsel also submitted that these evidences produced by appellants show that the investigation officers have made mockery of investigation process and the adjudicating authority has blindly passed the order based on the apprehensions stated in the SCN and Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original by merely showing guilt on the part of the appellant whose partner gave statements under duress though it is proved that the statements were wrong as there is not an iota of corrobora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by coercion, distress etc. is incorrect. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. the most point to be discussed in this case is whether the statement of the partner of the Company recorded can be taken as reliable evidence with allegation of coercion etc. is made and when the evidence is not corroborated by independent evidence/documents. The appellants have imported Booster Pumps and water purifier parts like RO Membrane from the following companies: - (i) M/s. Micro Filter Co. Ltd., Korea (ii) M/s. American RO, USA (iii) M/s. AQ & Q Co., Taiwan (iv) M/s. Aqua Winner International Co. Ltd., Taiwan (v) M/s. Triwin Watertech Co. Ltd. 6.1 The Department alleged that the appellants have resorted to undervaluation of the goods imported by them, whereas the appellants contended that they imported 28 consignments in the port of JNPT, Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad and Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. The appellants contented that the manner in which statement were recorded, the substance of the statement and the documents produced thereof could clearly show that it was under duress. In the statement dated 16.12.2008, the importer has stated that he had not made any underval....