TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,41,304/-u/s114A (ii)3,00,000/-u/s114AA 3. Chennai Sea Port 15-11-2014 4,086/- (i) 4,086/-u/s114A (ii) 1,000/-u/s114AA M/s. Salwan Papers Pvt Ltd (SPPL) S.No. Imports through Period of duty demand Duty demanded (in Rs) Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. Mundra Port 29-08-2014to11-05-2017 42,89,772/- (i) 42,89,772/-u/s114A (ii)10,00,000/-u/s114AA 2. ICD, TKD, New Delhi. 11-11-2014to22-11-2014 19,41,375/- (iii)19,41,375/-u/s114A (iv)4,50,000/-u/s114AA M/s. Salwan International Papers Pvt Ltd (SIPPL) S.No. Imports through Period of duty demand Duty demanded (inRs) Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. Mundra Port 14-11-2014to08-12-2014 23,54,921/- (i) 23,54,921/-u/s114A (ii)5,00,000/-u/s114AA Shri Prakash Chand Garg, Director NPT S.No. Imports through Penalty imposed (inRs.) 1. Mundra Port (i)15,00,000/-u/s112(a) (ii)10,00,000/-u/s114AA 2. ICD,TKD, NewDelhi (i)1,25,000/-u/s112(a) (ii)75,000/-u/s114AA 3. Chennai Sea Port (i) 5,000u/s112(a) (ii) 1,000u/s114AA Shri Ashish Garg, Director SPPL & SIPPL S.No. Imports through Penalty imposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies were also imposed on the importer. 2.4 The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide his order No. CC(A) Cus/D-II/ICD TKD (Import)/589/2017 dated 9.8.2017 set aside the Order-In-Original dated 9.2.2017 and held in there was no clear and cogent evidence to reject the transaction value for the purpose of assessment and while doing so he relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court. 2.5 A letter dated 31.1.2018 was received from Second Secretary (Trade) Embassy of India, Brussels to DRI, Bangalore containing 21 pages which included a covering letter from Federal Public Service Finance, General Administration of Customs and Excise, Administration of Inquiry and Investigation Central Component dated 19.1.2018 to Embassy of India certain export declaration of the supplier to NPT and invoices of higher value. (Procured documents) 2.6 Three statements from Shri Prakash Chand Garg were recorded during the investigations which are dated 23.1.2015, 24.4.2018 and 8.8.2018. In his first statement dated 23.1.2015 wherein he was interalia, asked why "Stock lot of coated/uncoated paper in rolls in mix sizes" was declared at Mundra ranging from $250 to $436PMT whereas for the identi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter dated 31.1.2018 and also on the basis of the statement recorded from Shri Prakash Chand Garg dated 8.8.2018. A proposal was made to reject the transaction value of 43 consignments imported from M/s. KorCo AB, Sweden by M/s NPT during the period February,2014 to June,2017 and differential duty was demanded as per the chart extracted hereinabove. It was alleged that M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong was one of major suppliers of goods to M/s NPT. Shri Prakash Chand Gargwas the Director of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd and the said M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd was the major supplier of stock lot of coated/un-coated paper to M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL. It was alleged that on further analysis of the verification report it was revealed that other shareholders of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. are Shri Ashish Garg, Shri Vikash Khatuwala and M/s NPT Overseas Pvt Ltd ( Earlier M/s Hanuman Food Grains Pvt Ltd). It is seen from the database available with the Company Master Data tab from Ministry of Corporate Affairs website that Mr. Vijay Garg who is the Director of M/s SIPPL and M/s SPPL is also the Director of M/s NPT Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it is clear that according to Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007 from all the three importers. Penal action was also proposed against the three importers under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act and penal action under Section 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act was proposed against Shri Prakash Chand Garg, Shri Ashish Garg and Shri Vijay Garg. 2.10 The matter was adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, AP and SEZ Mundra vide order dated 30.12.2019 in which he has confirmed the differential duty demand and imposed penalties as shown in table in para-1 above. 3 Shri K.K Anand, Ld. Advocate appeared for all the six Appellants and advanced the following submissions: - 3.1 That the DRI officers had seized 750 MT of the goods pertaining to M/s NPT from their godown at Alipur Delhi. There is no dispute that the seized goods were part of the imported goods which are the subject matter of the present dispute. Though the Additional Commissioner had ordered confiscation of the goods and had imposed penalties but on appeal the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi set aside the Order-in-Original and he categorically held that there was no evidence of under valuation by M/s NPT for the purpose of assessment. The said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant had requested for cross-examination of three persons viz. Shri Aseem Nanda, Second Secretary (Trade), Embassy of India, Brussels, Shri Brigitte Decatte, Fiscal Expert, Administration of Enquiry and Investigation, Brussels & Shri JeanSmets, Adviseur-Eerstaanwezend Inspector, Brussels, as the differential duty was solely based on documents received from overseas but the Principal Commissioner on erroneous reasoning denied the same. 3.4 That no reliance can be placed on the said documents as M/s. NPT had also sent copies of these documents (procured by the DRI from Belgium Customs) to the supplier, M/s KorCo AB, Sweden, for their comments, vide NPT e-mail dated 26.07.2019. In response the supplier denied ever having supplied these documents to the Customs and denied their correctness and genuineness. The supplier of the goods M/s. KorCo AB, Sweden informed M/s NPT that they had received certain mails from one Mr. Parthasarthy Bhaskar claiming to represent Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore India asking for their sales account statement and also details of receipt of payment (either cash or bank transfer) to all the three importers. In response to the mail ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt from the chart. In this regard, he stated that all these export declarations were part to the reply of Show Cause Notice as Annexure-12 and are available at pages 1636 to 1780 of Paper Book Vol.3 but the Principal Commissioner has not rendered any finding on the same. 3.6 He stated that M/s NPT had also brought on record ample evidence which showed that they had imported identical/similar goods from M/s Korco AB, Russia at sea port Mundra which were imported at the same price as imported from European Union. In this regards he took us through invoices, bills of entry, and some export declarations which were also enclosed with the reply to the Show Cause Notice. He also took us through evidence of identical/similar goods which were imported by M/s NPT from different suppliers located in European Union as well as imports undertaken from the suppliers located in USA and Canada almost at the same price. He also took us through the copies of the invoices and Bills of entry at which other indian importers had imported identical/similar goods at the same price. It is his contention that the entire aforementioned evidence was placed before the Principal Commissioner in reply to the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been applied across the board in respect of imports effected for M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL which is legally not sustainable. 3.9 That even in respect of the imports effected by M/s SPPL out of 18 consignments, 13 consignments were imported at Sea Port Mundra and 5 consignments were imported at ICD TKD, Delhi during period 29.8.2014 to 11.5.2017. They have brought two export declarations on record which are available at pages no. 1904 and 1913-1914 of Paper Book Vol.4 which show the price of Euro 339 PMT and Euro 304.44 PMT which when converted to US Dollar comes to 363 PMT and 325 PMT respectively. Even in this case there is no finding of the Principal Commissioner to this vital piece of evidence. 3.10 That all the three importers have been treated as related persons merely because the Directors of same are family members and merely because of inter se transfer of funds from one company to other during the financial year 2017-18. Shri Anand took us through a chart which showed that these payments were either received against some sales transactions or these entries related to repayment of loan etc. 3.11 That another reason for treating M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL as rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6)E.L.T.601(S.C.) (iii) L.R. MAURYA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BHOPAL-2019 (370) E.L.T. 906 (TRI. -DEL.) 3.13 That it is the submission of Shri Anand that except for reproducing Rule 2(2) of CVR which is a deeming provision to treat one person to be related to another no particular clause of the same has been invoked in the Show Cause Notice to treat three importers as related persons of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. There is absolutely no foundation laid down in the Show Cause Notice as to how M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kong was a related person of the three importers. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Brindavan Beverages Pvt Ltd reported in 2007(213) ELT 487(SC). 3.14 That the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously adopted Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 to reject the transaction value by adopting the actual value of the nearest period whereas the fact remains that the prices declared to the customs were the prices which were actually paid to the suppliers. As per law the only ground for rejection of transaction value can be that enumerated in Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of these submissions he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) BAYER INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI REPORTED AT 2006 (198) ELT 240 (TRI.-MUMBAI) which has been upheld by the supreme court as reported at- 2015(324) ELT17(SC). (ii) TeleBrands (India) Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs(Import),Mumbai reported at-2016 (336) ELT 97(Tri.-Mum). 3.17 That the Principal Commissioner in his order has ordered confiscation of 548 MT of goods seized at godown premises of NPT at Chennai and allowed the same to be redeemed on a Redemption Fine of Rs. 11 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that since the declared value is the correct assessable value the said goods are not liable for confiscation. 3.18 That in view of above submission, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the differential duty, penalties on all the six Appellants and Redemption Fine imposed on M/s NPT. 04. On the other hand, Shri S.N Gohil, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the department made the following submissions :- 4.1 That the documents which have been relied upon by the DRI were obtained from official channels by the Second....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 9 of CVR, 2007 to reject the transaction value as there was sufficient reasons to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value. Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 fully empowers the proper officer to re-determine the price under Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 keeping in view the modus operandi resorted by all the three Importers to undervalue the goods. He therefore supported order-in-original in totality. 4.10 In support of his various submissions he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) TRANSWORLD POLYMERS P LTD VS. CC, NHAVASHEVA REPORTED AT 2018 (363) ELT 996 (TRI-AHMD) (ii) MARTWIN ELECTRONICS VS. CST, AHMEDABAD REPORTED AT 2016(331) ELT 85 (TRI-AHMD) (iii) KONIA TRADING CO VS. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, JAIPUR REPORTED AT 2006(199) ELT 644 ( TRI-DEL) (iv) LAXMI ENTERPRISES VS. CC, NEW DELHI REPORTED AT 2018(361) ELT 1054 ( TRI-DEL) (v) LAXMI ENTERPRISES VS. COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI REPORTED AT 2020(372) ELT A33(SC) (vi) SRI KRISHNA SALES CORPORATION VS. CC, MUMBAI REPORTED AT 2017-TIOL-3650-CESTAT-MUM. (vii) CC(SEA), CHENNAI VS. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES REPORTED AT 2016(331) ELT 18 (SC) (viii) UNIVERSAL ABRASIVES & MINERAL P LTD VS. CC, CHENNAI REP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... -do- 635 235 318&32 C 226 & 252 of Paper book Vol.1. 10.6.14 13.5.14 018947266 9.5.14 4. 6228695 1001561 400 148EE0000 13368 625 225 31C&32 0 229 & 258 of Paper book Vol.1 24.7.14 25.6.14 024046867 13.6.14 13.6.14 5 7749575 1002096 400 14BEE0000 13954 605 205 31E&32E 247 & 261 of Paper book Vol.1 19.12.14 17.11.14 046211n4 17.11.14 14.11.14 6. 7749m 1002097 400 148EE0000 13954 605 205 31E&3 2F 247 & 263 of Paper book Vol.1 19.12.14 17.11.14 046211n4 17.11.14 14.11.14 7. 6735100 1001712 400 14BEE0000 13632 646 246 31D&32 G 245 & 265of Paper book Vol.1 12.9.14 11.8.14 03221....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any provision of law under which the documents procured from Belgium Customs have been relied upon against the three importers but the only section under which such documents can be relied upon is Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act,1962. For the sake of convenience Section 139 ibid is reproduced below: "Section 139.Presumption as to documents in certain cases Where any documents, - (i) is produced by any person or has been seized from the custody from or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or (ii) has been received from any place outside India in the course of investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person under this Act, And such document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence against him or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall- (a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of St\(:h document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....L.T 11 (SC) -wherein para 5 and para 6 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "5. The single Technical Member, who wrote the minority judgment, however, held the view that it was not essential V on the part of the Customs Officer to strictly prove the documents as required by the Evidence Act and that the authenticity of the documents, though copies, could not be doubted as they had been collected by the Collector from foreign sources and could be admitted in evidence by virtue of Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 which permits the raising of a presumption in respect of documents received from any place outside Indian in the course of investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person under the Act. The majority points out that these documents, which are photocopies, do not bear the signature either of the exporter, the forwarding agent, the stevedore or the Customs Officer. In fact, they do not bear any signature whatsoever and, therefore, the authenticity of these documents is suspect and iris not possible to presume that the originals are duly signed. It is for this reason that the majority did not consider it safe to place ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was an incorrect declaration made by the respondents in regard to the value of the consignments on the basis of these documents". 6.2 In the both above judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that if the documents procured from abroad which purportedly show higher value than the declared value, no reliance can be placed on the same if the said documents are neither authenticated nor attested even if they bear a serial number and stamp. No reliance can be placed on the same if they are only copies and bear no signature of the exporter or the forwarding agent or the Customs Officer of the exporting country. We hold that since the procured documents do not contain the details as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above two judgments the same cannot be relied upon against the three importers. Similarly corresponding five export declarations are also not admissible in the same manner. Further we find that in respect of two Bills of Entry at serial number 2 and 3 of the above chart only one export declaration dated 9.5.2014 has been relied upon without bringing on record corresponding invoices. No explanation has been given by the DRI as to if the purported exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Show Cause Notice. In fact it was obligatory upon the DRI to have rebutted this correspondence with the supplier while issuing the Show Cause Notice. Further the importers in their reply to the Show Cause Notice had brought this correspondence on record but the Principal Commissioner has chosen to completely overlook the same and has rendered no finding upon the same. 6.4 That the authenticity, genuineness and admissibility of procured documents can be examined from another angle. Under Section 2(41) of Customs Act the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared in bill of entry is the value referred to above and not merely the invoice price. On the plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1). Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 3(1) of CVR, 2007 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SA and Canada by M/s NPT. In all these supplies, the price of identical/similar goods range from US$ 400 PMT to US$ 435 PMT. This evidence was placed before the Principal Commissioner but he has not rebutted or controverted the same. In the face of this unimpeachable evidence the procured documents completely loose its evidentiary value. In support of our finding that even in cases where the department procures evidence of higher value at the place of export, the value cannot be enhanced unless there is an evidence of import of identical or similar goods at a higher value, we rely upon on law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta vs. South India Television P Ltd reported in 2007(214) ELT 3(SC) where in para 6 , para 7 and para 8 it has been laid down as under :- "6. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal for the following reasons. Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of the price. This is the conceptual meaning of value. Under Section 2(41), "value" is defined to mean value determined in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the sole repository of law governing val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....table, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Under-valuation has to be proved. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Department wants to allege under-valuation, it must make detailed inquiries; collect material and also adequate evidence. When under-valuation is alleged, the Department has to prove it by evidence or information about comparable imports. For proving under-valuation, if the Department relies on declaration made in the exporting country, it has to show how such declaration was procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory Application No. 4 in the present civil appeal, an application was moved by the importer calling upon the Department to produce the original declaration in the Court. No reply has been filed to the said I.A. till date. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Department had erred in rejecting the invoice submitted by the importer herein as incorrect. Further, the Department received from the Hong Kong supplier a Fax message dated 22-7-1996. That was produced before the Commissioner. In that message, he had explained that the manufacturer of the impugned goods was getting export rebates and, therefore, it is possible that the manufacturer had over-invoiced the price in order to claim more rebate. The goods were of Chinese origin. In the Fax message it is further stated by the foreign supplier that he was required to show the export value on the higher side in order to claim the incentives given by his Government. This explanation of the foreign supplier, in the present case, had been accepted by the Commissioner. In his order, the Commissioner has not ruled out over-invoicing of the export value by the foreign supplier in order to obtain incentives from his Government. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id documents do not commend any evidentiary value for the reasons stated by us in the preceding paragraphs even grant of cross examination would not have altered the factual position that these documents are not admissible in evidence. 6.6 We further find a part of the disputed goods imported by M/s NPT weighing 750 MT were seized by the DRI from its godown at Alipur Delhi. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated 9.8.2017 has categorically held that there was no clear and cogent evidence of undervaluation on the part of M/s NPT. While passing the order Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the data of contemporaneous imports where the values of similar goods were imported at the same value at which M/s NPT had imported the goods. It is an admitted position that this Order-in-Appeal was accepted by the department as no appeal was filed by the department before this Tribunal. Even the Principal Commissioner has accepted the same in para 24.3.3 of the Order-in-Original. It would mean that the department had accepted the legal position that when there was evidence of impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer were in response to the four invoices of higher value shown to him. Therefore, his answer should be seen in that context only. If M/s NPT would have indulged in undervaluation it was highly obligatory upon the investigating officers to put a pertinent query to Shri Garg as to how the extra amount was remitted to the supplier. Further this investigation centred around only four invoices when the fact remains that when his statement was recorded M/s NPT had already imported 43 consignments from M/s Korco AB, Sweden. Further we find that Shri Garg retracted from his statement by filing an affidavit before the DRI. Therefore the statement of Shri Garg cannot be seen in isolation but in the context of what was shown to him. If M/s NPT would have indulged in undervaluation Shri Garg would not have sought ten day time to verify the facts. It means his statement dated 8.8.2018 was not conclusive. The DRI should have called him again after ten days for further clarification if any but he was never summoned after 8.8.2018. It is well settled law that the admission is extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; it is open to the person who made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-1 VS. KUBER TOBACCO INDIA LTD, REpPORTED AT 2016 (338) ELT 113 (TRI.-DEL.) 6.09 We further find that the DRI has not brought any evidence on record to show that all the three importers had paid directly or indirectly any amount over and above the invoice value presented before the Indian Customs. As we have observed earlier that in his statement dated 8.8.2018 Shri Garg nowhere admitted that M/s NPT had paid any extra amount over and above the invoice price at which goods were cleared by the custom authorities. Further we have also observed that there were inquiries by the DRI from the supplier M/s Korco AB, Sweden who had categorically stated that all their transactions with three importers were through banking channels only. Once it is proved that there is no evidence of extra remittance transaction value cannot be discarded. In support of these findings, we place reliance on the following Judgments: (i) BAYER INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI 2006 (198) ELT 240 (TRI.-MUMBAI) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported at- 2015(324)ELT17(SC). (ii) TELEBRANDS (INDIA) PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORT), MUMBAI report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in regular affairs of each of the three entities/importers. In any event, the said transactions happened only during period 01.4.2017 to 31.12.2018 whereas the majority of duty demand in respect of all three importers is prior to said period. Further we have gone through a chart presented at the time of personal hearing in which the purpose of each entry has been explained. The majority of these entries pertain to the sales of the material from one entity to another entity and some entries pertain to repayment of loan. Hence from this point of view all the three importers cannot be treated as related persons. 6.12 As regards treating all the three importers as related persons on the ground that Shri Prakash Chand Garg was Director in M/s Affluent Ltd, Hong Kong, it is true that Shri Garg was one of the Director of M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, but during the period in dispute there was no imports by M/s NPT from M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong. Further with regard to M/s SIPPL, no imports were made from M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong during the relevant period. Only M/s SPPL imported three consignments from M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd, Hong Kong. We find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that the quality, model, brand of imported goods differ from time to time and piece to piece. He further held that even the Rule 8 of CVR, 2007 that is computed value cannot be adopted as the required data from overseas supplier was not available. He has therefore applied Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 i.e. Residual Method on the ground that M/s NPT, SPPL and SIPPL was resorting to undervaluation and fabrication of commercial invoices from overseas supplier M/s Korco AB, Sweden and from the supplies by M/s Affluent Enterprises Ltd. and M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kong in the same manner as was done in the case of imports from European Union. Therefore, relying on the export documents received from foreign supplier through Belgium Customs he has redetermined the declared value based on Rule 9 of CVR, 2007. 6.14 We find that the above finding of the Principal Commissioner is wholly unsustainable, factually incorrect and contrary to the evidence on record. In the first place the finding of the Principal Commissioner that the export documents/invoices were procured from the supplier through Belgium Customs is factually incorrect as the supplier in his correspondence to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is well settled law as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the price actually paid is to be considered as the transaction value. In support of these findings, we rely upon the following judgments: (i) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,CALCUTTA VS.SOUTHINDIATELEVISION (P)LTD reported at 2007(214)ELT3(SC) (ii) EICHER TRACTORS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI reported at 2000 (122) ELT 321(SC) - (iii) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI VS .J.D.ORGOCHEM LTD reported at 2008(226)ELT9(SC) (iv) C.C.E & S.T, NOIDA VS. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD reported at 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC) - C.C.E. & S.T (v) DAHLER INDIA PVT LTD VS.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE reported at 2017(357)ELT1129(Tri.-Mum) 6.16 That the Ld Superintendent (AR) has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his various submissions: (i) TRANSWORLD POLYMERS P LTD VS. CC, NHAVASHEVA 2018 (363) ELT 996 (Tri-Ahmd) (ii) MARTWIN ELECTRONICS VS. CST, AHMEDABAD 2016(331) ELT 85 (Tri-Ahmd) (iii) KONIA TRADING CO. VS. CC, JAIPUR 2006(199) ELT 644 ( Tri-Del) (iv) LAXMI ENTER....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the Managing Director of the both supplier and buyer was the same person. Hence the declared value was not accepted in absence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. Hence the Tribunal upheld the valuation under Rule 8 of CVR and in view of statement of the Managing Director. In the eighth case of M/s Telestar Travels P Ltd where the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Bombay High Court. In this case it was held that when the documents were produced by witness were disclosed and allowed to be inspected by the party and since these documents were in terms of Section 139 of the Evidence Act refusal to permit cross examination of such witness cannot be faulted on principles of Evidence Act and it does not cause any prejudice. In this regard, we have already held that even refusal of cross examination by the Principal Commissioner does not affect the fact that these documents are not admissible in evidence in terms of Section 139 (ii) of the Customs Act 1962. 6.17 That the Principal Commissioner has ordered confiscation of 548 MT (523 Rolls) of goods seized from the godown premises of M/s NPT at Chennai. Since the goods were provisionally released on exec....