TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore the operative part of which is as follows: (i) The value declared in the Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 is rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the value of the goods is re-determined at Rs. 2,07,23,066/- (Rupees Two Crore Seven Lakh Twenty Three Thousand and Sixty six only) in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007; (ii) The provisional assessment of the goods is finalized in respect of Container No. OOLU2897353, Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 with duty at Rs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the Customs Act, 1962 and order for recovery of the same from the amount already deposited by them; (vi) I order confiscation of the goods of Container No. OOLU1795505 under section 111(f) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and give an option to Noticee no I to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000-/ (Rupees One Crore Only) in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (vii) Penalty of Rs. 6,24,000/ (Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Only) is imposed on M/s Shivam Marketing. Noticee no 1 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (viii) Penalty of Rs. 6,24,000/ (Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Only) is imposed on Shri Gaurav Kushwaha, noticee no 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue is that the invoice produced along with the Bill of Entry is not the correct invoice and the correct value was revealed during investigation and it was found in the email of the appellant itself. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that assessment can be done only the basis of the invoice produced along with the Bill of Entry (Bill of Entry number 549 dated 5.3.2015) and the other invoice showing a different value for the same consignment found in its email was for private purposes and it cannot be reckoned to assess the duty. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case by Final Order No. C/A/57046-57047/2017-CU[DB] dated 19.10.2017 in which t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to hold that the invoice which is filed along with the bill of entry is not genuine or is a forged one. The invoice which is retrieved from the E-mail account of the appellant was never filed with the Department and the same was recovered during investigation. Such material particulars in possession of the appellant in his private capacity and not filed for clearance of any import consignments cannot substantiate a case of mis-declaration. 6. Further, we also note that the provision of Section 138C of the Customs Act relating the admissibility of computer print out as evidence in the proceedings have not been followed in the present case. The charge of mis-declaration against the importer was sought to be supported by the details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the importer/appellants. 8. Regarding re-determination of declared value, we note that the Original Authority recorded that the value cannot be determined under Rule 4 and 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. We note that before proceeding with the re-determination, the Original Authority should reject the transaction value as declared by the importer. A perusal of the impugned order 7 CUS/50669- 50770 of 2017 indicates that the Original Authority only examined the applicability of various valuation rules to the present case. The value declared by the appellant is Rs. 2,45,95,984/-, the value re-determined based on Valuation Certificate of the Government approved valuer is Rs. 2,51,25,568/-. Considering the nature of the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf: xxxxxx 6. Section 14 requires the assessment to be on the basis of transaction value, i.e., the price at which such goods are actually sold. If a price is indicated in the invoice between the importer and exporter, it cannot be termed "an invoice for private purposes" as it reflects the transaction value. There is no scope either under Section 14 or any other provision of the Customs Act, 1962 or the Rules made thereunder which will enable or permit the importer to obtain and produce a separate invoice only to be filed along with the Bill of Entry while reflecting the correct transaction value in the "invoice for private purposes". In our considered view, if such i....