TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Each package contained different number of rolls of fabrics. On verification of weighment slip of the containers, the net weight of the cargo was found tallying with the weight shown in the BoE. Representative samples were drawn from the above-mentioned consignment for testing. The test report confirmed the misdeclaration of the description of the goods as polyester knitted fabrics instead of viscose knitted fabric and it appeared that the appellants had grossly undervalued the fabrics to evade customs duty. 48303.20 kgs of imported viscose knitted fabrics was seized on 18.2.2010 for taking further action under Customs Act, 1962. After due process of law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority rejected the description, classification and declared value of the goods and reclassified the same as viscose knitted fabrics (6006 4100 / 6006 4200). He further redetermined the value of the said goods; demanded the differential duty of Rs.19,61,733/- and imposed a concurrent penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on the appellant under sec. 114A read with Sec.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Department also preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement dated 05.03.2010, under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Any manufacturer/supplier shipping almost 50 Tonnes of cannot be lacking internal controls to ship goods which was ordered by their customer and be totally unaware for as long as 2 weeks after any such major lapse was allegedly discovered. The averments are hence meaningless and lack bonafides. Further if the impugned goods were not as per the order placed by the importer, there has not been even a whisper for re-export. The importer has failed to furnish any evidence of having engaged in any correspondence with the foreign supplier to inform them about wrong goods shipped by them, and also for getting any reply claiming that the foreign supplier had intimated about wrong shipment of goods. The SCN issued is as per the mandate of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The value of the goods has been determined in the sequential manner under the next Rule 4 of the CVR with a clear observation that data of import relied upon for re-determination of value is for contemporaneous period and from the same country of origin. Initially, 37 imports data of contemporaneous imports was duly shared with the Appellants. Later as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted for 96.7% polyester fabrics (753.7 kgs). 6. The appellant has stated that they have filed the three BoE's on the basis of the documents received from the suppliers and they were not having prior knowledge that the goods imported are viscose knitted fabrics as against the polyester knitted fabrics ordered by them. Further on verification of weighment slip of the containers, the net weight of the cargo was found to be tallying with the weight shown in the BoE and the rate of duty for both types of fabrics was the same. 7. The belief, knowledge and intention of the parties involved are a part of evidence. Direct evidence is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act, through which a fact can be proved. Once the Revenue has been able to disprove the description and value declared by the importer, based on facts and preponderance of probabilities respectively, the burden would then shift to the assessee to prove its claim. As stated by the Apex Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs Messrs. Best & Co [1966 SCR (2) 430 / AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1325] "We may point out, as some argument was advanced on the question of burden of proof, that this Court did not lay down ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin his special knowledge. Section 106 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act., 1872, as it stood during the relevant time, gives statutory recognition to this universally accepted rule of evidence. However, this alone would not suffice. 6.3 In the era of self-assessment the primary onus to declare the correct details/information, necessary for the assessment, is on the assessee-importer. Once the details are declared in the BoE by the importer, the burden of proving that the price declared is not correct is on revenue. In this case the information provided in the BoE was found to be incorrect as per the test reports and the preponderance of probability, based on the contemporaneous BE's relied upon by revenue. As stated by the Hon'ble apex Court in Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. V. D. Bhoormull [1974] 3 S.C.R. 833], the broad effect of the application of the basic principles underlying section 106 of the Evidence Act would be that the onus is discharged if the prosecution adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of facts sought to be proved. Revenue hence discharged the onus of....