TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of imported RPO. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further upheld that the appellant mis-declared the country of origin in the bills of entry. Consequently, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeals. 1.2 The following four issues are involved in the present appeals:- (i) Whether the Rubber Processing Oil imported by the Appellant is classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 27101990 as classified by the Appellants or under Chapter Heading No. 27079900 as classified by the Revenue. (ii) Whether the value of the imported RPO can be enhanced based on the consent letters given by the directors of the Appellants at the time of release of the goods, without following the due process of law as contemplated under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Customs (Determination of Value of imported value) Rules, 2017. (iii) Whether the Appellants mis- declared the Country of Origin in the Bills of entry filed by them. (iv) Whether the quantum of penalties and redemption fine imposed disproportionate to differential duty involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in , he submits that both the lower authorities held that the appellants have mis-declared the country of origin in the bills of entry as UAE whereas the goods were originated from Iran. He submits that the appellant had no deliberate intention not to declare the correct country of origin, the appellant declared country of origin based on documents received from the supplier. He takes support in case of BEL India trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2007 (216) ELT 441. 2.4 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he further submits that even though if the appellant accepts the finding of both the lower authorities, penalties and redemption fine imposed on the appellants are disproportionate to the differential duty amount involved in the impugned proceedings. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is also submitted that there is no intention on the part of the appellant or the director to evade custom duty, the appellant have classified the disputed goods under Chapter Heading No. 27101990 based on valuation under same heading and the decision of Sah Petroleum Ltd (Supra) however, value ought not to have been enhanced on the basis of the Consent letters. There is no undue bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Enhancement of declared value twice, from USD 500 PMT(C &F Kandla) to USD 531.500 PMT(C & F Kandla) and therefore, further enhancement to USD 585 on the basis of the copy of invoice received from shipping agent. 1.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 7638694 dated 11.08.2012 with Custom House, Kandla for clearance of 198 MT Rubber Processing Oil for assessment on first check basis. The appellant has classified goods under CTH 27101990. The appellant presented Quality Certificate No. TOP 2012/COQ-148 dated 28.08.2012 received from overseas supplier M/s. The Oceanic Petroleum Source Pvt. Ltd, Singapore showing among other parameters, Aromatic content as 33.8% measured by adopting ASTM D 2140 method. Geo Chem laboratory vide report dated 06.10.2012 as per which reported the aromatic content of 35%. The claim of the appellant is that aromatic content was less than the non-aromatic content. The goods were assessed provisionally and clearance was permitted. The test report dated 26.09.2012 issued by custom laboratory, Kandla in respect of sample drawn by customs reported aromatic content as above 50% i.e. more than non-aromatic constitue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 112(a) and Section 114AA. However, remaining portion against present appellants were upheld. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the appellants. 2. Shri Vikas Mehta, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant filed a synopsis dated 22.11.2023 which is taken on record, wherein he made detailed submission on facts and merit of the case. He also placed reliance on the following Judgments:- Sah Petroluems Ltd. V/s. Commr. Of Cus. (Import) JNCH, Nhava Shev -2017(358) ELT 483 (Tribunal - Mumbai) Agrawal Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s. Commissioner Of Customs, Manglore, 2020 (373) ELT 280 ( Tri.- Bangalore) Surbit Impex Ltd.-2012(283) ELT 556 (Tri.- Mumbai) Mittal International -2018 (359) ELT 527 (Tri. -Del) Jay Kay Exports -2003 (161) ELT 443 (Tri. -Kol) 3. On the other hand Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered submissions made by both the sides, and perused the rerecords. In the present appeal, issue to be decided by us in the appeal filed by M/s. Amit Petrolubes Pvt Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce as UAE. The same was held as Malasiya by the lower authority, by relying on statement of Shri Hemant Shah, Director of appellant. We find that, it is submitted that the appellant has not claimed any preferential rate of duty on the basis of declaration regarding country of origin. 4.5. We are of the view that, without going into the fact that, which is the correct county of origin, since the appellant has not claimed any concession on the basis of country of origin the issue is only of aromatic content and having no revenue implication. Therefore no consequential penalty is sustainable. The very identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in Agrawal Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s. Commissioner Of Customs, Manglore, 2020 (373) ELT 280 ( Tri.- Bangalore), whereby the Hon'ble Tribunal has set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the country of origin was mis-declared in the bill of entry by taking note of the fact that the importer had not claimed any preferential rate of duty on this basis. 4.6. Considering the said decision of the Tribunal and fact of the present case, we ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment's claim of classifying the RPO under 27.07 was rejected. Therefore in view of our above discussion and with the support of the above referred judgment and particular facts of the present case, the impugned order on the issue of classification is not sustainable. 4.2. As regard enhancement of the valuation, we find that the enhancement was made merely on the consent letters given by the directors of the appellant. In our view on hearsay from director valuation, the transaction value cannot be decided. If there is any doubt on the valuation, the due process of law as contemplated under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Customs (Determination of Value of imported value) Rules, 2017 must be complied with. However, in the present case neither any contemporaneous value was adopted nor any method as prescribed under Section 14 read with Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 was followed. Therefore, merely on the basis of statements of director valuation cannot be enhanced. Therefore, the enhancement of the value is not sustainable in the facts of the present case. This similar issue has been considered in the case of Guru Rajendra Metal Alloy wherein the tribunal held that only o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... including that of the appellant, I find that nobody has spoken against the appellant that the appellant is in any way involved in the manipulation of changing the 'country of origin' documents. The appellant has filed the bill of entry and showed the 'country of origin' as "UAE" on the basis of documents supplied to him by the supplier based at UAE. Further no document has been produced by Revenue on record to show the involvement of appellant in any way in the said misdeclaration. Further, I find that in the present case the appellant has not claimed any preferential rate of duty. After examining the provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(m), I find that both the provisions are not applicable in the fact and circumstances of this case. Further, I find that no mala fides has been brought on record on the part of appellant so as to impose penalties on the appellant under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, I find that in the case of Oriental Containers Limited v. Union of India (cited supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in para 9 has observed as under : "9. Having heard the Counsel on both the sides, we are of the opinion that in the pres....