TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nageshwar Enterprises and weighing 3084.43 kgs, declared to be worth Rs. 10,20,600 but valued at Rs. 44,41,986 on seizure during investigations, was confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 11,00,000 and discharge of duty liability of Rs. 10,94,576. The value of goods imported between 2005-06 and 2007-08, invoiced at Rs. 2,32,30,277 was enhanced in the impugned order to Rs. 7,61,34,473 with differential duty of Rs. 1,56,18,996 besides being saddled with penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The goods seized from the premises of M/s Modern Embroideries, with declared value of Rs. 9,23,603, was revalued to Rs. 20,02,985 with consequent differential duty of Rs. 2,64,236 recoverable on redemption of the goods by payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of confiscation. The value of the goods imported by them in 2006-07 and 2007-08, declared at Rs. 71,08,076, was enhanced to Rs. 1,55,52,057 and subjected to differential duty of Rs. 21,52,729 upon redemption from confiscation on payment of fine of Rs. 31,00,000. Besides the penalty imposed on the importer under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962, the partner found himself to be liable to penalty of Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Rules, 1988 was improper in the light of lack of evidence that the declared value was not the transaction value. 5. From the records, it would appear that the rejection of the values declared in the bills of entry, and the consequent confirmation of differential duty emanating from re-determination of value, is based entirely on the admissions in the statements of Shri Rajesh Gandhi recorded during the course of investigations. Learned Authorised Representative points out that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] holding that '3... It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he purchased the gold and had brought it.... Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at the conveyor belt or the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses is not violative of the principle of natural justice.... The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner.' not only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s precedent in the present dispute. He further claims that the decision of the Tribunal that '11.... By and large, the two statements appeared to be consistent with each other and there is no significant conflict between the two. We find that a clear admission of undervaluation of the goods is reflected in the statements given by the importer under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. It is also on record that certain payment was made voluntarily by them during the course of investigations. Therefore, we are not impressed with the plea made by the ld. Counsel that the first statement was retracted by the importer.' in Rahul Ramanbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2010 (256) ELT 424 (Tri-Mumbai)] is even more supportive of the case of Revenue with the statements of Shri Rajesh Gandhi containing unqualified admissions that had not been retracted at any stage. He submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that '3..... The Customs officials are not police officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner....' in re Surjeet Singh Chhabra is the seal of approval to discount the attempt by Learned Counsel to discred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied, would arise only in the case where the goods were already cleared. In view of the clear finding with regard to the misdeclaration and suppression of value, which led to the evaluation and proposed short-levy of duty, we do not see any lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicating authority to issue notice under Section 28 (1) of the Act.' 7. We are told that the SLP filed against the above decision of the High Court was dismissed by the Apex Court [Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner-2007 (209) ELT A 61 (SC)]. 8. We also note that this Tribunal followed Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd (supra) and Venus Enterprises (supra) in Ford India Private Limited v. Commr of Customs, Chennai [2008 (228) ELT 71 (Tri-Chennai)]. On the other hand, in the cases of Hitaishi Fine Kraft Indus Pvt Ltd (supra) and Shimnit Machine Tools & Equipment Ltd (supra), the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra) was not considered. 9. In the result, we reject the plea made by the ld. Counsel that it was not open to the Department to reopen the assessment under Sec. 28 of the Customs Act.' 8. Though in a different context, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in disposing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statements had been recorded from the individual who was charged with the offence of smuggling of goods whereas, by the very nature of the structuring of the importer-appellants, the statement relied upon is that of another co-noticee. Implicit in this observation of ours is the substantial, and often unbridgeable, chasm between an individual-importer and an organisational-importer; statements of an artificial person is an impossibility and statements of natural persons connected with offence allegedly committed by a legal person can only be corroborative of other evidences and never the bedrock. This opinion of ours is entirely consistent with the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in re Sangeeta Metals (India) and in re Rahul Ramanbhai Patel which clearly record the corroborative support of the statements relied upon in concatenation with other evidences. Such are not the facts and circumstances in the present proceedings where, admittedly, the statements are the sole basis of the entire proceedings. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rendering the finding that de hors the statements, no other evidence is on record to validate the show cause notice. 12. Nevertheless, we must a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the transaction value, evident from invoices, of the goods that are imported is to be the assessable value. Not unnaturally, there are presumptions for such acknowledgement which are embodied as combinatorial expressions in section 14 (1) of Customs Act, 1962. Any transaction that lacks any one or more of the qualifications prescribed therein should, necessarily, be externed from its ambit with recourse to section 14 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 and, thereby, within the coverage of Rules framed thereunder. In the context of the present dispute, that is Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Long after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eicher Motors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)], mandating strict compliance with the Rules, was found to be too restrictive and, at times, repugnant to tax interests, rule 10A was incorporated to enable challenge to the declared value and requiring the importer to furnish evidence in support of their declarations. In line with the non-derogability of the fundamental concept governing the scheme of valuation, the newly incorporated rule was, to continue the allegory, limited t....