TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., whereby he upheld the order dated 09.03.2017 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 assessa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for their omission and commission as 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 con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was no grounds to substantiate that there was any collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts ; (4) Even on 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to change the classification and the impugned order and the order-in-original also do not indicate any proposak to change the classification of the goods. Therefore, the change of classification cannot be sustained. As far as the valuation is concerned, the entire proposal of the Revenue is on two legs. The first is the appellant admitted in his statement that there was a difference between modified Tapioca Starch and Tapioca Starch and that he had imported Tapioca Starch in the disputed consignments. The second is that the TTSA prices during the relevant period were much higher. Based on these two facts, the assumption of the Revenue is that the prices were mis-declared by the appellant with an intent to evade duty and, therefore, the decl....