TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d redetermine the value at Rs. 40,15,137/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Seven Only) and Rs. 1,59,15,685/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakh Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only), respectively, being the true transaction value under rule 4 of CVR, 1988 r/w section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.2.2 I confiscate the impugned imported goods having aggregate declared value of Rs. 23,05,904/- and redetermine value of Rs. 40,15,137/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Seven Only) and Rs. 91,33,765/- and re-determine value of Rs. 1,59,15,685/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakh Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only), respectively, under section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.2.3 I confirm the demand of customs duty amounting to (Rs. 33,44,793/- + Rs. 8,54,717/- =) Rs. 41,99,410/- (Rupees forty one lakh ninety nine thousand four hundred and ten only) on M/s I G International under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and order recovery forthwith; 6.2.4 I confirm the demand of interest of customs duty confirmed at para 6.2.3, on M/s I G International under the proviso to sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate rates upto the date of payment of said duty on M/s I G International under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962; 6.3.6 I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) on Shri Gian Chand Arora under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.3.7 I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each on M/s I G International and Shri Gian Chand Arora under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962; and 6.3.8 I do not impose any penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s I G International as Section 114A clearly precluded imposition of penalty under both the sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 6.4 I further order appropriation of the amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- deposited by M/s I G International voluntarily towards their liabilities of duty interest,, fine and/or penalty for the clearances effected at Nhava Sheva Port and/ or Chennai Port. 6.5 This order is without prejudice to any other action and/ or further action, on the aforesaid noticees/ companies/ firms and/or on other individuals/ persons under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or any other Law for the time being in force." 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Consulate General of India, New York (letter dated 13.10.2008). After recording the statements of importer and related persons in respect of these imports, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2009 was issued to the importer asking them to show cause as to why, • the declared value in respect of the imported goods be not rejected and the goods valued on the basis of actual transaction value declared to U S Customs; • differential duty on the imported goods be not demanded and recovered from them by invoking extended period as per proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; • interest on the differential duty demanded should not be demanded in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962; • the imported goods should be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; • penalty under section 112, 114A and 114AA be not imposed on them. 2.3 Appellants had during the course of investigations deposited a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- as a part of their differential duty liability. 2.4 Commissioner Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva was appointed as common adjudicating authority vide noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught on record by the department in the form of the provisions made by the shipper and the actual invoices filed with the US Authorities is impeccable and show that the imports have been made by misdeclaring the value is erroneous as the documents relied upon by the department, are unsigned and unauthenticated documents. vii. In view of the submissions as above the contention that there has been any violation on their in the import of any of the consignments. Hence the order holding that these goods are liable to confiscation, redetermination of value and duty payable, demand for interest and penalty imposed needs to be set aside. 4.1 We have heard Ms Pooja Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Ms P Vinita Sekhar, Additional Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.2 Arguing for the appellants while reiterating the submissions made in appeal, learned counsel submitted that - • The case has been made against them on the basis of unauthenticated and unsigned documents. Such unsigned and unauthenticated documents cannot have much evidentiary value as has been held by the Apex Court in case of East Punjab Trader [1997 (89) ELT 11 (SC)]. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018]; • Bhitti Impex Final Order No A/85722- 85723/2019 dated 12.04.2019; • Partner (Appellant 2) of Appellant, has in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 has admitted about existence of two sets of invoice and also the fact two set of invoices were issued at their instance. He also admitted the fact about making the payment of total amount as per the invoice. All the documents collected through Consulate General were seen and admitted by him. • It is now settled law that the statements recorded under Section 108 of Custom Act are substantial piece of evidence and need not be proved again. She relies upon following decisions in this respect. • K I Pavunny [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)] • Govindasamy Ragupathy [1998 (98) ELT 50 (Mad)] • Chandra Impex Pvt Ltd [2008 (224) ELT 583 (T-Del)] • Sidharth Shankar Roy {2013 (291) ELT 244 (T-Mum)] • On issue of retraction she would rely upon the decision of tribunal in case of • Pradeep Master Batches Pvt Ltd [2017 (348) ELT 692 (T-Mum)]. • D M Mehta & Bros [2017 (346) ELT 477 (T- Mum)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit Price Total Container # HDMU5931590 Seal # 0045204 US# 1 Green CAD' Anjou Pears Half Ctn 1575 15.25 24018.75 1575 5.75 905.25 US# 1 Red CAD' Anjou Pears Half Ctn 630 14.25 8977.50 630 4.75 2992.50 Container # HDMU5945573 Seal # 0043285 Chelan Starr Label WAX F Stripe CA Red Delicious Apples HP 326 23.50 7661.00 326 13.50 4401.00 Starr Ranch Label WAX F Stripe CA Red Delicious Apples HP 188 23.50 4418.00 188 14.00 2632.00 WAX F Stripe CA Red Delicious Apples HP 172 23.50 4042.00 172 13.50 2322.00 WAX F Stripe CA Red Delicious Apples HP 245 22.50 5512.50 245 12.50 3062.50 WAX F Stripe CA Red Delicious Apples HP 98 22.50 2205.00 98 12.00 1176.00 CIF Nhava Sheva 3234 86834.75 2205 12048.75 1029 13593.50 The above table clearly shows that the invoices and the docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal. The bills of lading filed by us mention the filter reference number at the right hand top below the bill of lading number. The bills of lading also mention the invoice number, vessel, voyage number, shipper name, weight and date. I have compared these details and correlated with the details in the declaration made by the exporter in USA. I state that the filter reference numbers tallied with other details i.e. vessel, voyage and weight. The bills of entry also mention the bill of lading and weight. Thus the details mentioned in the declarations made by the exporter in USA could be tallied with the import documents filed by my firm. On being asked about the value mentioned in the bills of entry and in the declarations made by the supplier i.e. M/s. Dovex Export Co., I admit that the value declared by the supplier are the actual value for the consignments and the value declared by our firm in the bills of entry are not the actual values for said consignments. The values are suppressed owing to a huge increase in international demand of US apples creating extreme short supply situation causing the prices to jump to high levels i.e. US$ 16-17 to US$ 21-22. The retail con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per in value. Our company used to submit the invoices showing lower value to Indian Customs and get our consignments assessed and cleared based on the same invoices. Today I am shown documents pertaining to twelve consignments shown in the annexure to this statement. All the consignments were shipped b y M/s. Oneonta Trading Corporation. I have perused all the twelve documents i.e. bill of lading, original commercial invoice showing the actual value, suppressed value and also balance to be paid, packing list, certificate of origin, insurance certificate and phytosanitary certificates. I have put my dated signature on all the documents perused by me. After perusing the documents in respect of the twelve consignments shown in the Annexure to this statement, which were shipped by M/s. Oneonta Trading Corporation, I admit that the actual value of the twelve consignments was USD 468142 whereas the value declared in the bills of entry filed by us was USD 273494. I admit that M/s. I.G. International had not declared the actual value of the consignments by USD 194648 and had not paid customs duty amounting to Rs. 43,24,600/- in respect of the said twelve consignments. Thus in all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above contentions raised by the appellant. The Commissioner has specifically considered these objections in his order and the view taken by him is not liable to be interfered with. The export declaration given by M/s. Alam Trading Co. was obtained by DRI from their counterpart through legal and diplomatic channel. Entries in these declarations would tally with the name of the party, airway bill number and description of the goods. The declaration bears the official markings of the Customs and Excise Department in the space marked as "official use only" at the top right hand side of the export declaration which is a computer generated official stamping. The Commissioner is also correct in the finding that the broad heading of the goods "Component Parts of Electronic Modules for Digital Electronic Watches" mentioned in the export declaration as well as in the invoice No. 1-1090-8-96, dated 7-8-96 and Bill of Entry No. 1207, dated 27-8-96 tallies with each other. In the Bill of Entry all the individual component parts have been given while in the export declaration the total number of Digital Modules in CKD condition have been shown and not individual component part separately. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame time, nor was he able to determine it by resorting to Rules 6 and 7. It is in this background that he placed reliance on the said report. The said report constituted a valid piece of material because from the official enquiries, it transpired that the export declarations made before the Customs & Excise Department, Hong Kong in respect of these two invoices by M/s. Zaptron (HK) Ltd. were inaccurate declarations. The discrepancy in respect of these two invoices was detected by the Customs & Excise Department, Hong Kong, as communicated in the said report dated 24-7-99 and there was no reason for the Commissioner to suspect the accuracy of the statements made therein, because the Customs & Excise Department of Hong Kong was the authority who had conic to know about the inaccurate export declarations made by the said exporter before it and could, on comparison of the CIF values declared by the exporter before them and the CIF values mentioned in the two invoices, authentically inform the Customs authorities here about such discrepancy. The document dated 24-7-99, which was an official report submitted in pursuance of the enquiries made by the department carried its own evidentiary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignificant that Shri Chhabria had never at any stage furnished any explanation for the price difference detected. Therefore the reliance placed by Collector on the Japanese invoices for determining the assessable value is well-founded. The appellants have not put forth any convincing defence against the Collector's findings that in the two sets of invoices items carrying higher rate of duty, or which were in the restricted category for purposes of import licencing, were given lower value compared to the value of those items which carried lower rate of duty and which could be easily imported against OGL, and that their value was inflated to accommodate value of items carrying higher rate of duty. The Collector had found that while the overall difference in the invoice price declared for different items to the Indian Customs was only ranging from 3% to 16%, the itemwise difference in valuation was quite substantial. There is also no infirmity in the Collector adopting the price in the 10 Japanese invoices in arriving at the assessable value of 14,000 kits for which no corresponding Japanese invoices are available, because these goods had been compared with those in the Japanese invoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were obtained from supplier M/s Delbi Fibres. Those documents are invoices, bill of exports, bill of lading and M/s Delbi Fibres in the said enquiry also submitted co-relation chart. On close scrutiny of these documents, we find that the invoice no. and date are matching with those invoices. Bill of export, bill of lading etc produced by M/s Delbi Fibres to Italian Customs authorities showing the higher value. 6.1 As regard authenticity of these documents, there cannot be any doubt for the reason that Italian Customs authority has obtained these documents directly from the supplier M/s Delbi Fibres and the same was obtained by the High Commission of India, U.K. From perusal of these documents, it cannot be said that these documents are authentic. 6.2 As regard the issue raised by the learned Counsel that the invoices was unsigned, we do not find much force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the reason that other corroborative evidence of bill of lading, bill of export etc which are duly signed and showing the corresponding invoice details and the higher value. As per the chart prepared and submitted by M/s Delbi Fibres, it is clearly shown that even the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the same are upheld. As regard the redemption fine, we find that though the redemption fine was imposed but the goods were not available for confiscation. In the case of Shiv Krupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that in case the goods are not available and if the goods are not released provisionally, redemption fine cannot be imposed. Therefore, in the present case neither the goods were available nor the same were released on provisional basis therefore, redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is not legal and proper. Hence we set aside the redemption fine." 5.5 In view of the decisions referred above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the submission of the Appellants that enhancement of value done on the basis of the documents received from the U S Customs through Consulate General, is not warranted. The decision of East Punjab Traders referred to by the Appellants to is distinguishable, as in the para 5 of the judgment, it is specifically recorded that the documents were not recovered through the officially prescribed channel and were not collected from the Customs of the concerned countries. The said para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whom the export declaration had been obtained and the respondents chose not to avail of that opportunity is no ground for holding that the requirements of Section 139 are satisfied for the purpose of raising the presumption. In order to raise the presumption under the said provision, the basic facts had to be laid. Even though they bear a serial number and stamp of Japan Customs, the fact remains that they are copies of copies and indisputably bear no signature of the exporter, the forwarding agent, the stevedore or the Customs Officer; no signature at all of any of them. The discrepancy in regard to copies bearing the seal of customs at Kobe also raises a serious doubt whether the copies relate to any of the consignments in question. In these circumstances, if the majority was disinclined to place reliance on these documents we find it difficult to hold that it was in error in doing so." 5.6 Issue in respect of reliance placed by the Commissioner on the statement of Shri Gian Chand Arora (Appellant 2), is also well settled by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other Courts as follows: K I Pavunny [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)] "25. It would thus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that his retracted confession within six days from the date of the confession was not before a Police Officer. The Custom Officers are not police officers. Therefore, it was held that "the confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. So there is no need to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner". As noted, the object of the Act is to prevent large-scale smuggling of precious metals and other dutiable goods and to facilitate detection and confiscation of smuggled goods into, or out of the country. The contraventions and offences under the Act are committed in an organised manner under absolute secrecy. They are white-collar crimes upsetting the economy of the country. Detection and confiscation of the smuggled goods are aimed to check the escapement and avoidance of customs duty and to prevent perpetration thereof. In an appropriate case when the authority thought it expedient to have the contraveners prosecuted under Section 135 etc., separate procedure of filing a complaint has been provided under the Act. By necessary implication, resort to the investigation under Chapter XII of the Code stands excluded unless dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on.' 19. In K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (Head Quarter), Central Excise, Collectorate, Cochin [Judgments Today 1997 (2) S.C. 120 = 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)], it is reiterated holding that the appellant therein when he gave confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not a person accused of an offence. It is further contemplated therein that `the appellant while giving statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was bound to speak the truth with the added risk of being prosecuted if he gave false evidence.' Threat emanates from the statute and officers merely enforce the law. Held further that `the officer exercising powers under the Customs Act is an authority within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act.' 20. It is further held in the same judgment that `the confession statement under Section 108 even though later retracted is a voluntary statement and was not influenced by threat, duress or inducement etc., and is true one' - `Confession when retracted has to be tested under Sections 24 to 30 of Evidence Act - Burden is on the accused to prove that confession was made under threat and only if accused is able to prove tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with regard to the same. Moreover, such minor irregularities are not going to be the factors to decide the case of the nature i.e. one in hand. 24. In the above case it is not event the version of the defence that the confession statement had been obtained under threat or duress or inducement etc, so as to cast serious doubts on the contents of Exhibits P-6 to P-8. It is not the case of the defence that Exhibits P-6 to P-8 were not given by him at the place, time and in the manner alleged. The only objection was that they were given by the accused according to the dictation of the customs officials. 25. The only plea that was taken in the form of suggesting to the prosecution witnesses is that to the dictation of the Customs Officials the respondent gave statement and it was not voluntary. In view that the confession statement had been allowed to be marked, the burden to prove that it was not voluntarily given by the accused but had been made to the dictation of the prosecuting officials is heavily on the accused to prove with regard to which there is not a single attempt made on the part of the accused and hence the version of the prosecution has to be relied upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived were fabricated and the consideration for the transactions were received in cash on per container basis. The transporter who was present during the enquiry proceedings and who was examined by the inquiry officer has also confirmed that the goods after clearance from the Customs were diverted and were never sent to the declared destinations. The facts contained in the statements of Shri Bhavesh Mehta and Shri Prashant Popat were also corroborated in the examination proceedings of Mr. D.M. Mehta, and Mr. H.D. Mehta, partners of the appellant-CHA. Thus, if we look at the whole transactions, it is clear that the CHA did not exercise any control, whatsoever and everything was done by Shri Prashant Popat with the active connivance of Shri Bhavesh Mehta, for a consideration. The subsequent retraction of their statements by these two persons do not reduce the evidentiary value of their original statements for the reason that the retractions were made after a lapse of time and it was not done before the officer who had recorded the statement. The facts narrated therein were also corroborated by the partners of the CHA firm who were examined during the inquiry proceedings. The decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalties imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are justified in view of the Apex Court decision in case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)] "18. One cannot fail to notice that both the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 11A and Section 11AC use the same expressions : "....by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,...". In other words the conditions that would extend the normal period of one year to five years would also attract the imposition of penalty. It, therefore, follows that if the notice under Section 11A(1) states that the escaped duty was the result of any conscious and deliberate wrong doing and in the order passed under Section 11A(2) there is a legally tenable finding to that effect then the provision of Section 11AC would also get attracted. The converse of this, equally true, is that in the absence of such an allegation in the notice the period for which the escaped duty may be reclaimed would be confined to one year and in the absence of such a fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the company and the director. For this assertion, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jagannath Plastipacks (P) Ltd. (supra). It is seen that in the said case the Tribunal has observed as follows :- "7. I find that the Original Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on the appellant assessee, which under the circumstances, requires to be reduced, and I accordingly reduce the same to Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) only, considering all facts and circumstances. I find that separately, penalties have been imposed both on the appellant Managing Director and appellant Executive Director of the appellant company, which are not warranted in view of the foregoing. Hence, the same are set aside. As regards the demand of duty and interest, the same are also set aside in view of the cited Larger Bench decision and cited decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court holding that payment by Cenvat credit is as good as by cash." It can be seen that no ratio has been laid down by the Tribunal that separate penalties cannot be imposed on the company and the director. In the special facts of the said case, no penalties have been imposed on the managing d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could be imposed where the goods were neither available for confiscation nor cleared under bond/undertaking. The Hon'ble High Court followed the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in Weston Components case and held that, as the goods in question had been allowed to be cleared without execution of any bond/undertaking by the importer, no redemption fine could be imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act in lieu of confiscation. Reproduced below is the relevant part of the High Court's judgment. "12. It may also be noticed here that in the case of M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (supra), the goods were released to the assessee on an application made by it and on the execution of a bond by the assessee and in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed would not take away the power of custom authority to levy redemption fine. A reading of the judgment/order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (supra), would show that the Apex Court has taken the view that redemption fine can be imposed even in the abse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court ordered vide 2005 (184) E.L.T. A36 (S.C.) as under: "We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed." (emphasis supplied) In the result, the view taken by the Tribunal in Chinku Exports case stands affirmed by the Apex Court and consequently the similar view taken by the P & H High Court in Raja Impex case is a binding precedent while the contra decision of the Madras High Court in Venus Enterprises case ceases to be good law on the point. It may be noted contextually that the dismissal, by the apex Court, of the SLP filed by M/s. Venus Enterprises did not have the effect of enhancing the precedent value of the High Court's decision in that case. 11. It is nobody's case that a binding judicial authority on the question of imposability of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act in lieu of confiscation of goods not available for confiscation would not be applicable where the similar question arises as to whether a fine could be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (read with Section 34 of the Central Excise Act) in lieu of confiscation of excisable goods not available for confiscation." 5.9 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions i. Kanhai Ram Thakedar [2005 (185) ELT 3 (SC)] ii. TCP Limited [2006 (1) STR 134 (T-Ahd)] iii. Pepsi Cola Marketing Co [2007 (8) STR 246 (T-Ahd)] iv. Ballarpur Industries Limited [2007 (5) STR 197 (T-Mum)] 5.10 We are not in agreement with the submissions of the Appellant that because they have deposited the duty prior to issuance of the show cause notice, no penalties could have been imposed on them in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in case of PadamShri V V Patil SSK [2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom)] "8.The ratio laid down in the matter of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Bang.), relied upon by learned Counsel for assessee, which view was confirmed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal of the department, that in case the duty is paid before issuance of show cause notice, no penalty u/s. 11AC is imposable, was a decision of the Tribunal at Bangalore dated 13-11-2002. Taking into consideration the hierarchy of authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. Assessment Officer conducting enquiry and determining the duty evaded or sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee pays it within 30 days. This answers both the substantial questions of law on which appeal is admitted, so far as penalty imposable u/s. 11AC is concerned." 6.1 In view of discussions as above we uphold the impugned order except for setting aside the order in respect of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine. Thus appeals filed are disposed off as follows: i. Appeal No C/1187/2012 filed by I G International is partially allowed to the extent of setting aside the order confiscating the goods and imposing redemption fine. ii. Appeal No C/1188/2012 filed by Shri Gian Chand Arora is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2019) ============= Document 1 14 SEABIRD MA E.D.I. Service Cent Triplicate (Exchange Control Copy) Indian Customs EDI System Imports (ICES/I) JNPT Nhava Sheva Mumbai 400 707. BILL OF ENTRY FOR HOME CONSUMPTION Str INNSA 180 ] CHA AADFC1547RCH001 (CROWN SHIPPING AGENCY Dt./cc/Typ: 634142/22/01/2007/N/H DOC No./Dt/Officar: 1216464/13-02-2007/SPRI er Details 2299002405 SINTERNATIONAL, *S.C.F. 12, SUBJI MANDI, STOR 26, ANDIGARH. PAN AAAF17829R 160026 G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TOI CIF 0.00 1 0.00 Cust. House' ONEONTA TRADING CORPORATION! P.O.BOX NO 549, WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON 98807-0549 HSS Load Rate: 0.00% Amount: Load(Ass}} U.S.A Load(Dty): 0.00 Charges 0.00 0.00 Discount Rate: 0.00 Discount Amount: Item Details 0:00 Exchange rate: 1.00 USD 44.7000 INR BUTC Description RSP Unit Price Ass Val CTH CETH C.Notn C.NSNO E.Notn E.NSÑO Cus Dty Rt Exc Dty Rt Load PROV BCD amt (Rs) CVD ant (Rs) 543964.92 163189.50 0.00 08081000 1RESH APPLES SIZE-113 BER GTN, IMPORT PERMIT $24299 2010. 13.500000 08081000. 50.00 % 149323.70 298647.40 08081000 0.00 % 0.00 Educational Cess on CVD ustoms Educational Case 4065/2009 addi Dut(Imports) 081000 FRESH APPLES S 2.00 % 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 620%208 128 *00% 0.00 14.000000 08081000 50.00 % 77427:10 154854.21 Educational Cess on CVD 08081000 0.00 % 0.00 2 2.00 % 0.00 Customs Educational Cess 069/2004 1 1020/2006 28 Addl Duty (Imports) ' 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 08081000 FRESH APPLES SIZE-113 PE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs by O Van/Vay PRESIDENT TRUMAN V194H Port of Discharg NHAVA SHEVA, INDIA Container HoSeal No. No. of Containers Marks and Numbers or Other P Place of Receipt SEATTLE, WA, CY ม.ค. 12 Port of Leading Onwarded Routing SEATTLE, NA For Th Place of Delivery Final Destination For Merchant) NHAVARREVA, INDIA, CY PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY SHIPPER Description of Packages and Goods Gress Weight Mem 43,521.000D Total Huber of Con or Packages (in wards) Freight & Charges 1029 CARTONS OF FRESH APPLES AND 2205 CARTONE OF FRESH PEARS! SAID TO BE IN 2/40'H REEFER CONTAINERS CARGO IS STONED IN / CHER AT THE SHIPPER'S REQUESTED CARRYING TEMPERATURE OF (33) DEGRER VENTS 1/4 OPEN FREIGHT PREPAID NO SED-AB54-5034810811599956-70305 CONTRACT# 717 14 WORKING DAYS EQUIPMENT FREE TIME ALLOWED UNDER CONTRACT LADEN ON BOARD !1/7/2007 THESE COMMODITIES, TECHNOLOGY OR SOFTWARE WERE EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS. DIVERSION CONTRARY TO U.S. LAW IS PROHIBITED. 2340 FREIGHT AS ARRANGED Unil Propsid NON....