2023 (4) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner and rejected the appellant's appeal. 2. The appellant imported "modified Tapioca Starch", Industrial Grade classifying it under Chapter Heading 35051090 and paid appropriate amount of duty. Receiving intelligence that the appellant had evaded customs duty and the imported goods were "Native Tapioca Starch, Industrial Grade" classifiable under Tariff Heading 1108, the officers of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) initiated the investigation, recorded statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Garg, Managing Director of the appellant and others and issued a SCN dated 26.02.2016 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why :- (i) The declared assessable value amounting to Rs. 74,62,416/- (Rs. Seven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s discussed in the body of show cause". 3. The Additional Commissioner passed an order, the operative part of which is as follows :- (i) I reject the declared value of Rs. 74,62,416/- in respect of imported goods i.e. Tapioca Starch Industrial Grade (CTH 11081400), as detailed in para 14 & 15 above, under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and re-determine the same at Rs. 1,23,69,372/- (Rs. One Crore twenty three lakhs sixty nine thousand three hundred seventy two only) under Rule 5 of the Rules ibid (being the value of similar goods) as the actual transaction value of the goods ; (ii) I confirm the demand of differential duty of Rs. 49,92,190/- (Rs. Forty nine lakhs ninety two thou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n merits the appellant status were correctly classified under CTH 19030000 and there is no case to re-classified under CTH 11081990 ; (5) There was no evidence to show that the appellant had mis-declared the value of the imported goods. Apart from the statements recorded from the Managing Director of the appellant it was subsequently reflected. 5. Mere suspicion or doubt without any credible evidence is not sufficient to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 and its re-determination under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 6. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue submits that (1) in the voluntary statements dated 09.12.2013, 09.06....