TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en assailed by Barfo Impex in Customs Appeal No. 50820 of 2020. 2. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs on the proprietor of Ajit Kumar Jain, proprietor of M/s. Vardhman Automobiles has been assailed in Customs Appeal No. 50821 of 2020. 3. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs on the proprietor of Ms. Aakruti Impex has been assailed in Customs Appeal No. 51111 of 2020. 4. The adjudication of the three show cause notices is described in the following chart: Sl. No. Date of show cause notice Allegation Differential Customs Duty Demand Impugned order 1. 24.01.2019 Mis-classification Rs. 1,05,657/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 8337245 dated 27.01.2017 Drops the demand 2. 15.03.2019 Mis-classification Rs. 2,92,436/- in respect of Bill of Entry Nos. 8928322 dated 17.03.2017 and 8879961 dated 14.03.2017 Drops the demand 3. 29.05.2019 Mis-classification and Undervaluation Rs. 1,17,34,066/- in respect of 7 Bills of Entry (i) Drops the demand with respect to Classification. (ii) upholds the demand with respect to undervaluation. 5. The demand is based on the observation of the Audit that the imported goods i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng channels, which they suppressed completely from the knowledge of the department; (v) that the said documents contain unambiguous details of the modus operandi of the appellant firm to undervalue the subject imports and show the undisclosed over and above payments made in RMB/USD to the overseas suppliers; (vi) that apart from the payment of Rs. 4,03,24,796/- to Bocica, China and Bocica, Hong Kong through their bank accounts with HDFC bank and YES bank, the appellant also made payment of Rs. 4,35,81,595/- through unauthorized banking/non-banking channels which is within the exclusive knowledge of Sourabh Jain, his father Ajit Kumar Jain and the beneficial owner of the impugned goods Rakesh Lal Shah, proprietor of M/s Aakruti Impex; 9. Based on the entries found in the aforesaid documents, it was further alleged that the appellant had made a total payment of Rs. 8,39,06,391/- to the overseas suppliers, M/s Bocica China and M/s Bocica Hong Kong, against the subject import. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellant had mis-declared the value by submitting fake invoice, having less value than actual and thus the declared value was liable for rejection under r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the appellant in Customs Appeal No. 50820 of 2020 and Customs Appeal No. 50821 of 2020: (i) The contemporaneous price of the imported goods are comparable to the declared value; (ii) The imported goods (CtCP) attract Anti-dumping duty and the declared value is comparable with the finding dated 15.05.2020 recorded by the designated authority in Anti-dumping matters; (iii) The notebook and diaries resumed from the residential premises are merely rough estimates/target discussions/rough profit and loss analysis having no evidentiary value; (iv) The declared transaction value is correct in terms of the 2007 Valuation Rules since no transactions other than by banks are made; and (v) The Principal Commissioner committed an error in passing the impugned order and considering the submissions made by the appellant. 14. Shri Dhanashekharan, learned special counsel appearing for the department made the following submissions: (i) The assessable values are based on the documents recovered during the investigation from the proprietor of the company Saurabh Jain and his father Ajit Kumar Jain; (ii) The appellant connived with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided that such transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, including commissions and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and licence fees, costs of transportation to the place of importation, insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent and in the manner specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided further that the rules made in this behalf may provide for,- (i) the circumstances in which the buyer and the seller shall be deemed to be related; (ii) the manner of determination of value in respect of goods when there is no sale, or the buyer and the seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration for the sale or in any other case; (iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; (b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price; (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents; (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production; (e) the non declaration of parameters such as brand, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification dated 15.05.2020 in OI case No. 6/2019 in anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the „digital offset printing plates‟ originating in or imported from China PR, Japan, Korea RP, Taiwan and Vietnam. The final findings record that the landing cost of digital offset printed plates is Rs. 231.31 per plate for the year 2017-18. This is the average price of three types of plates. The appellant imported the subjected goods at the rate of 2.05 USD per plate in January 2017 and at the rate of 3 USD per plate in September 2017. The average price works out to 2.52 USD. After adding the landing charges and customs duty, the value works out to Rs. 210/- per plate, which is comparable to Rs. 231/- per plate. The enhanced value, as proposed by the department, works out to Rs. 330/- per plate and if the applicable duties are added, it will work out to Rs. 423 per plate. This value is much higher than the value determined in the Final Finding Notification dated 15.05.2020. 24. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the value of USD 2.05 to USD 3 per plate as declared by the appellant and also assessed by the department in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of clandestine activities. As such we find no reasons to uphold the impugned order. The same are accordingly set aside and both the appeals are allowed." (emphasis supplied) 29. In Woodmen Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna 2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.- Kolkata) the Tribunal observed as follows: 8. xxxxxxxxxxx. Further, coming to the validity of the entries found in the private diary, we note that there are catenae of judgments of the Tribunal, the Hon‟ble High Courts and the Hon‟ble Apex Court to the effect that entries made in the private note book cannot be considered as conclusive evidence unless the entries are fully corroborated. One such judgment of the Tribunal is in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Dhanavilas (Madras) Snuff Co. reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 437 (Tri. - Chennai) = 2003 (54) RLT 336. 30. Civil Appeal No. D8636 of 2004 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in Woodmen Industries was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.09.2003 and the decision is reported in Commissioner vs. Woodmen Industries 2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.). 31. What has been remarked by the Trib....