Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (4) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, that, as an exception to impost on all goods of a class, in charging duties that are country-specific - of production and/or of export and/or even supply - and/or producer/exporter - specific, however justifiable the consequence is and however morally outraged the tax collector be, the assessment is to be characterized by nothing short of the most rigorous application. Anything less, and the tax collector would be foraying into the domain of the designated authority or usurping that of the Central Government. With this caveat, we may proceed to examine the circumstances in which the dispute came to be. 3. Before us are three appellants, including customs broker and overseas supplier on whom penalties have been imposed, impugning order, [order-in-original no. 82/2013/CAC/CC(G)/PKA-CFS (M)(I) dated 28th June 2013] of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai in relation to import of 'measuring tapes' against eight bills of entry filed between November 2007 and December 2009 which, if sourced from China, would have been leviable to duties in notification no. 147/03-Cus dated 7th October 2003, 50/08-Cus dated 21st April 2008 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., no. 327344/31.01.2008, no. 33066/13.10.2008, no. 337219/08.06.2009, no. 337967/17.07.2009, no. 339776/ 05.10.2009 and 340637/18.11.2009 and in none of these, including the consignment under seizure, did the importer furnish country of origin certification issued by Malaysian authorities ostensibly, and as reported by the Dubai supplier, owing to there being no such requirement for shipment from Singapore. Investigations through officials channel with Companies Commission of Malaysia was also said to have established that such entity did not exist there. 6. The value declared in the bills of entry were US$ 0.54 per dozen for '3 metre' tape, US$ 0.72 per dozen for '5 metre' tape, US$ 3.00 per dozen for '15 metre' tape and US$ 4.50 per dozen for '30 metre' tape and it was also reported that the importer raised local invoices on local purchasers merely for book adjustment. Based on investigations that was held to suffice for rejection of value declared in the bills of entry and from lack of wherewithal for recourse to rule 4, rule 5, rule 7, rule 8, rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was resorted to in conjunction with report of market....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned goods and the statements of the buyers, Mr Chetan Shah, Mr Sharad Doshi and Mr Hussain Bootwala, did not meet the test of relevance prescribed in section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 in view of retraction during crossexamination. It was also pointed out that the consignment at ICD, Tughlakhabad, referred to by the adjudicating authority, originated from an entirely different source while that at Jodhpur from the same supplier had been accepted without demur to be immunized from anti-dumping duty. The adoption of market survey prices as valid for rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was disputed by Learned Counsel. On behalf of the customs broker, it was contended that they had merely filed documents furnished to them and that none of the statements pointed to any wrong doing on their part. For the overseas supplier, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Seville Products Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana [2021 (378) ELT 291 (Tri-Chan)], to question jurisdiction to impose penalty. 8. In support of his contention that an inappropriately conducted market survey cannot be the basis for resort to rule 12 of Customs V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not in dispute there. 10. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the challenge to the discarding of cross-examination in the adjudication order does not have much bearing on the outcome in view of the order of the Tribunal in Ravi Jagota v. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar [2006 (198) ELT 234 (Tri-Del)]. He placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Ratan Exports & Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2000 (123) ELT 808 (Tribunal)], in Converge Labs Software Tech Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon [2009 (242) ELT 18 (Tri--Del)], in MV Chidambaram and Others v. Collector of Customs, Madras [1987 (29) ELT 601 (Tribunal)] and in Success Engineering v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2007 (215) ELT 220 (Tri-Ahmd)]. 11. The proceedings, culminating in recovery of differential duty and anti-dumping duty on 'measuring tapes made of steel' and 'measuring tapes made of fiber glass' from the principal noticee, has had a curious passage commencing, as it did, with alert issued by Directorate General of Valuation on the steep under-invoicing of such goods from several countries including Malaysia, on which, as yet, anti-dumping duty was no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6): Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.' of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is contingent upon price differential between landed cost in India and price at source and is specific to permutation and combination of country of manufacture/export/ manufacturer/ supplier; the essential difference between assessment to basic customs duty and subjecting goods to anti-dumping duty is that, in the former the presumption of transaction value may be disrupted while, in the latter, is the unvarying certainty of the declared value being the transaction value. Consequently, and in the light of this special deviation from the nor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hardly be accepted as authoritative sources for establishing origin and the transaction allegedly entered into between these traders and the importer may have relevance for proceedings under some other statute without any bearing on conformity with the conditions for imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty. 14. On the other hand, the appellant has produced 'container tracking report' evidencing shipment of the box from Malaysia. The bill of lading clearly evidences shipment from Singapore. It does not behove the legal status of the adjudicator, as well as the legality of the adjudication, to discard certificate of origin issued by a competent authority under relevant provisions of the statutory instrument permitting such certification. In the light of evidence supra, the deficiency in establishing the movement of the goods from China to Malaysia remains unfilled. There is, thus, no valid grounds for holding that the goods did originate from China and, thereby, liable to the anti-dumping duty. 15. The adjudicating authority has, on the basis of the very same evidence, found it appropriate to reject the declared value under rule 12 and for resorting to rule 9 of the Customs....