TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs, chandeliers, garden lights etc., from the Peoples Republic of China; Intelligence gathered by DRI indicated that the appellant was engaged in undervaluation and evasion of customs duty. A search was conducted on 25.02.2013 at the office-cum-shop premises of the appellant; three files relating to import and purchase by appellants during 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13 were seized; data relating to all imports from China made by the importer, saved in the system was retrieved and printouts were taken; it appeared from the data, that the actual transaction value in respect of the light fittings was as per the order list containing pages 1 to 78; printouts of the documents, from the E-mail of Shri A.V. Joseph's were also taken; the emails, int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 (Bill of Entry No.5803321 dated 13.01.2012). 2.3. Shri A.V. Joseph vide his letter dated 13.03.2013 addressed to the ADG, DRI retracted his statement recorded by the officers on 25.02.2013 and also stated that the deposit made was also under threat and coercion by the officers. Smt Reshmi Sanjith also retracted her statements by letter dated 13.03.2013. Both the retractions were refuted by the Department in their reply dated 6.3.2013 and 18.03.2013 respectively. 3. Actual value of the goods, imported vide bill of entry No.9358041 dated 19.02.2013 in container No.HLXU6566912 and seized on 04.03. 2013, was ascertained at Rs. 39, 00,000 (MV) (CIF value Rs. 26 lakhs), from the order list of previous imports. Provisional release was allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t,1962, on Shri A.V. Joseph, former partner; (iv). Imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, under Section 112(a) of Customs Act,1962, on Smt. Reshmi Sanjith, Accountant of Powercon Electricals imposed with penalty under Section 112 (a) Rs. 5 lakhs. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri P. A. Augustian urges that though the goods were detained alleging undervaluation, no re-valuation was done either by conducting examination through approved Chartered Engineer or with the help of the qualified examiner/appraising officers as is evident from the record; value of the 44 items was adopted as per previous import order list and for the remaining 44 items, the value was loaded by 33.3%. Such valuation is bad in law; as regards the goods imported under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without giving any reasons; the impugned order is also bad for violation of the principles of natural justice, as cross examination of the concerned officer was not allowed. 7. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the value adopted for revaluation is bad, based on the retracted statement of the appellant, which is not sustainable and fit to be set aside; although, the fair value of the goods was available as per NIDB data for contemporaneous import, the same was not considered; revenue has not discharged the burden of proof to substantiate under valuation; there is no evidentiary value of the statements recorded under Section 108 and reliance is placed on the ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with the order list (showing actual transaction value); the appellants have explained in detail the modus operandi for undervaluation of the goods by misguiding the Customs; all the relied upon documents are admitted by the appellants; the documents and the statements established the allegation of the Revenue; accordingly, he prays for confirming the impugned order and dismissing the appeals. 9. Having considered the rival contentions and having gone through the records of the case, we find that the allegation of undervaluation has been established by the documentary evidence brought on record and corroborated by the oral evidence of the appellants. Interestingly, such oral evidences were given not once but on 3 to 4 occasions. Thus, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax and Sales Tax record is concerned, the same are not of much relevance for the purpose of customs duty, in the facts and circumstances. Similarly, Revenue was not required to look into the value of the similar goods as per contemporaneous import, in view of the actual transaction value found in the documentary evidence retrieved from the appellants. Accordingly, rejection of the declared value and the re-valuation of the goods are upheld. So far as the penalties are concerned with respect to the 13 past bills of entries, the same were subject to assessment by the Customs Department. In some cases, the values were loaded, which were accepted by the appellant and duty paid accordingly. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty with resp....