TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal F No S/26- Misc-311/2011 Gr IV. JNCH dated 09.08.2012. 1.2 Additional Commissioner Customs Appraising Group IV, JNCH has by his order held as follows: "13 I reject declared value of goods (16.626 MTs of Stainless Steel Sheets) under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and order to re-determine at rate US$ 3258 PMT (CIF) based on contemporary import price, under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. I order to impose Anti Dumping Duty on Item No 2 of the Bill of Entry of 1.232 MTs of H R Stainless Steel Sheets in terms of S N 5 of the Notification No 104/2011 dated 25.11.2011. The Bill of Entry will be assessed accordingly and importer shall pay differential;/ anti dumping duty. 14. I order confiscation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, having weight .702 MTs. 2.3 Thus the goods were found to be misdeclared with respect to description with an intention to undervalue the same and also to avoid payment of Anti Dumping Duty as per Notification No 104/2011. 2.4 Statement of Shri Bharat N Kanungo, Director of Appellants was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he admitted that the * correct details of the goods were not shown on the Bill of Entry, import invoice and packing list; * he did this to undervalue the goods to save duty and avoid payment of Anti Dumping Duty; * Details were mentioned on the invoice and packing list issued as per his direction; * He is ready to get the goods assessed as per the goods found during the examinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for enhancing the value without adequate evidences to reject the transaction value. As had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Eicher tractors Ltd [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. * He also submitted that the enhancement of value on the basis of visual examination also is not justified in view of the following decision- * Aneri Steel [2013-TIOL-1070-CESTAT-Mum] * Venture Impex [2016 (338) ELT 759 9T-Mum)] * Ames India [2019 (4) TMI 109- CESTAT-MUMBAI] * While the value has been enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2005, the copies of the relevant Bill of Entries was not provided to them. * Thus there is no misdeclaration of description or value with respect to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B/E of contemporaneous imports. * Since the goods have been found to be misdeclared in description and value they are liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable to penalty. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 The present case of misdeclaration of the goods is based on the: a. Examination of the goods. b. Statement of the Director of the Appellants. 4.3 On examination the goods were not found to be as declared by the appellants on the Bill of Entry. The examination was conducted in the presence of the representative of the CHA. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 06.07.2012, Shri Bharat N Kanungo a....