AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Private Limited. The importer has imported Misc. items like plastic folders, PS Digital Analogue printing plates (CTCP) frying pan etc. In the said B/E the main appellant has declared the value of the imported consignment at Rs. 37,10.497/- and self assessed Customs duty of Rs. 10,82,621/-. The consignment was ordered, by the proper officer, for 10% examination as per guidelines issued by the Department. During the examination by the Customs officer on 2.10.2017, it was found that the goods imported were mis-declared in respect of description/quantity/value of the goods inasmuch as as the initial declaration was made for import of unbranded goods but in examination were found to be the branded goods. The goods were, thereafter, examined 100% by the officer of SIIB on 25.10.2015 in presence of Shri Umesh Sharma, representative of CHA and weighment of consignment was also done. On weighment the weight was found to be 25380 Kgs. as against the declared weight of 25340 Kg. From the examination, it appeared that the appellant has imported branded goods in regard to frying pans, pizza pan, baskets. During the investigation, statement of Shri Manish Goel, (co-noticee) and Shri Inderjeet, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recollect the MRP of these goods. 2.2 In his statement, Shri Manish Goel, other co-noticee appeared before the Investigating officer and submitted that he would be producing the manufacturer invoice of Frying Pan and Pizza Pan of brand "Shri & Sam" along with copy of agreement/contract/purchase order etc. to justify the value declared in the Bill of entry with price negotiation. In his statement, Shri Manish Goel, further submitted that at the time of clearance of Bill of entry, he submitted the first invoice for the import of consignment at USD 48,016.38 received from M/s Asian Ethics Ltd., Hong Kong, who had exported the consignment to the appellant. Subsequently, he also agreed to the fact that another invoice was obtained from his E. Mail having the same number and date which indicated the price of imported consignment at USD 75,175.28. It was submitted by him that this consignment was obtained by him from the supplier who has pooled the goods from various other manufacturers in China. He also submitted that another third invoice by the Departmental officer also having with the same number and date i.e. AS-1109 11 September, 2017 which mentioned price of imported consignment a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessable value of Rs. 86,41,493/- under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act ibid and packages of said goods under Section 118 of the Act, ibid. However, I give an option to M/s Neena International having IEC No. 0514040726 to redeem the goods on payment fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,36,699/- (Rupees One Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Nine only) under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer, M/s Neena International having IEC No. 0514040726. (vi) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,72,82,986/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six only) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Manish Goel, Karta M/s Neena International (IEC No. 0514040726), J-182, Basement, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039." 2.4 Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who modified the order of the lower adjudicating authority while upholding the duty demand and confiscation under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, however, reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not accept the contents and the genesis of the said invoice and recorded his disagreement with the value mentioned in the invoice for some 3 or 4 items on the copy of the said invoice and also in the statement recorded on 30.4.2018. However, the learned adjudicating authority did not consider the same and re-determined the highest value as apparent on the three invoice. 3.2 All these points were agitated before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, he has not considered the point raised by the appellant and approved the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority so far as valuation is concerned. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that enhancement of the value by the lower adjudicating authority without having any evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher value or any market enquiry or any other evidence of extra payment so as to reject the transaction value. It is, thus, alleged that the rejection of the transaction value was is gross violation of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, as has been held in catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and this Tribunal. The learned Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 September, 2017 (second invoice). Yet another Invoice having the same No. AS-1109 dated 11 September 2017 was obtained by the Department which showed the price of USD 129573.28 for the same consignment (third invoice). It is the contention of the appellant that although they have agreed to this price but with endorsement that "I have seen this invoice but do not agree with the contents mentioned in this invoice. Further, I agree to pay the duty on the value of this invoice to avoid the demurrage charges and early release of the goods." It cannot be said that this acceptance was voluntarily in nature. The Department has not investigated the matter to find out as to why there are three different invoice of same number, one submitted along with the Bill of Entry other, retrieved from the E. Mail of the appellant and third one at which the consignment has been assessed obtained from the source unknown to the appellant but available with the Investigation officer. The Department has also conducted the market survey of the various items imported by the appellant but could not find any market price for those goods in view of their not being available for the purpose of comparison. The ....