AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded; goods imported in the past and lying in the godowns/ premises of the importers were seized and later released on provisional basis; on completion of investigation, it appeared to the Revenue that Shri Deepak Gupta was importing adhesive coated paper tape, adhesive paper, adhesive coated PVC tape, self-adhesive plastic tape, PVC film adhesive tape, adhesive tape etc. of different specifications/ dimensions, from China, USA, Europe, Taiwan, Singapore, by undervaluing 15% to 37.5%, in the name of M/s Sunbeam Industries and M/s Ad Adhesive Industries and evaded customs duty. Accordingly, show cause notices both dated 29.08.2008 issued to M/s Ad Adhesive Industries and M/s Sunbeam Industries seeking to re-determine the value of the goods imported; to confiscate the seized goods recover the duty short- paid, of Rs.31,53,000/- and Rs.37,51,477/- respectively; to appropriate the duty paid; to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,24,317/- given by M/s Ad Adhesive Industries and to impose penalties. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV vide which the demands raised were confirmed; equal penalties were imposed; amounts paid during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of transaction value based on earlier imports is blatantly illegal; the only evidence relied upon by DRI is the import by M/s Ad Adhesive Industries vide Bill of Entry No.105359 and 105360, wherein the value was enhanced from 800 USD to 1100 USD PMT; an appeal made by the importer against such enhancement is pending; loaded price in one bill of entry cannot be a benchmark for other imports, more so, when the same is disputed. He submits that reliance on enhanced value, in a bill of entry to determine the contemporaneous value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is incorrect; the appellant imported 80 consignments from March 2004 to May 2007; however, no evidence of value declared in contemporaneous imports by others is not produced; in the absence of contemporaneous value of identical or similar imports, matching in quantity, quality, time, supplier, the country etc., provisions of Rules 3,4 & 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can only be applied sequentially; no evidence of Hawala transactions, remittances over and above declared price to the foreign suppliers is produced; as there is no evidence to reject the declared price and to enhanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... V/S FORTE GARMENTS -- 2002 (150) ELT 622 * 2008 (226) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)-- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI VERSUS J.D. ORGOCHEM LTD. * COMMISSIONER V. IRON MASTER INDIA PVT. LTD. 2003 (157) E.L.T. A151 (S.C.) * 2002 (143) E.L.T. 364 (TRI. DEL.)--VENUS INSULATION PRODUCTS MFG. CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., GOA * COMMISSIONER V.VENUS INSULATION PRODUCTS MFG. CO. -2003 (153) E.L.T. A172 (S.C.)] * 2003 (161) E.L.T. 279 (TRI. CHEΝΝΑΙ)-- NITEE TRADING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA), CHENNAI * 1997 (92) E.L.T. A130 (S.C)-COLLECTOR V. USHA AMORPHOUS METALS LTD. * 2003 (160) E.L.T. 508 (TRI. DEL.)--K.C. VERMA & CO VERSUS COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI * 2001 (137) E.L.T. 957 (TRI. CHENNAI)-- DWARAKADAS G. KANJANI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD * TAITO WATCH MANUFACTURING INDS. Versus C.C., JAIPUR - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 17 (Tri. - Del.) * COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA V/S SOUTH INDIA TELEVISYION PVT -- 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) * KRISHNA TRADING CO V/S COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA -- 2001 (137) E.L.T. 429 (TRI. KOLKATA) * COMMISSIONER ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-valued by their firms and the differential amount was being paid to the representative of the foreign buyers in cash either in India or abroad whenever Shri Deepak Gupta travelled. The defense of the appellants, on the other hand, is that no incriminating evidence, documentary or otherwise, was found during the searches of various premises of the appellants; case cannot be made on the basis of oral statements of the accountant/ manager of the firms, more so, in the absence of examination of the witnesses under Section 138B was not done by the adjudicating authority and request for cross-examination was also not allowed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants submit also that one bill of entry of goods imported in the past, wherein value was enhanced but challenged by the appellants, cannot be a benchmark to arrive at the value of goods imported over a period of time thereto from a spectrum of countries and of different specifications. 8. On going through the records of the case, we find that Revenue has not provided any evidence regarding the prevalence of any value, of goods contemporaneously imported by other, so that the transaction value declared b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act Customs duty is chargeable on goods. According to Section 14(1) of the Act, the assessment of duty is to be made on the value of the goods. The value may be fixed by the Central Government under Section 14(2). Where the value is not so fixed, the value has to be determined under Section 14(1). The value, according to Section 14(1), shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation - in the course of international trade. The word "ordinarily" necessarily implies the exclusion of "extraordinary" or "special" circumstances. This is clarified by the last phrase in Section 14 which describes an "ordinary" sale as one "where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale ...". Subject to these three conditions laid down in Section 14(1) of time, place and absence of special circumstances, the price of imported goods is to be determined under Section 14(1A) in accordance with the Rules framed in this behalf. xxx xxx xxx 9. These exceptions are in expansion and explicatory of the special....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is also not the respondent's case that the particular import fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor's price list as if a price list is invariably proof of the transaction value. This was erroneous and could not be a reason by itself to reject the transaction value. A discount is a commercially-acceptable measure which may be resorted to by a vendor for a variety of reasons including stock clearance. A price list is really no more than a general quotation. It does not preclude discounts on the listed price. In fact, a discount is calculated with reference to the price list. Admittedly in this case a discount up to 30% was allowable in ordinary circumstances by the Indian agent itself. There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one-time sale of 5- year-old stock. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to anyon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal for the following reasons. Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of the price. This is the conceptual meaning of value. Under Section 2(41), "value" is defined to mean value determined in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the sole repository of law governing valuation of goods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only in respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the valuation of export goods. That must be done based on Section 14 itself. In the present case, the Department has charged the respondent importer alleging misdeclaration regarding the price. There is no allegation of misdeclaration in the context of the description of the goods. In the present case, the allegation is of underinvoicing. The charge of underinvoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department to prove that the apparent is not the real. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025 dated 01.04.2025 has gone into the issue at length. Principal Bench held that : 21. It would be seen section 14 of the Central Excise Act and section 108 of the Customs Act enable the concerned Officers to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary to give evidence in any inquiry which such Officers are making. The statements of the persons so summoned are then recorded under these provisions. It is these statements which are referred to either in section 9D of the Central Excise Act or in section 138B of the Customs Act. A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of these two sections makes it evident that the statement recorded before the concerned Officer during the course of any inquiry or proceeding shall be relevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts which it contains only when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness before the Court and such Court is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence, in the interests of justice, except where the person who tendered the statement is dead or cannot be found. In view of the provisions of sub section (2) of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers would arise only after the statement is admitted in evidence by the adjudicating authority in accordance with the procedure contemplated in section 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The judgment also highlights the reason why such an elaborative procedure has been provided in section 9D(1) of the Central Excise Act. It notes that a statement recorded during inquiry/investigation by an Officer of the department has a possibility of having been recorded under coercion or compulsion and it is in order to neutralize this possibility that the statement of the witness has to be recorded before the adjudicating authority. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below: "15. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9D of the Act makes it clear that clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section set out the circumstances in which a statement, made and signed by a person before the Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank, during the course of inquiry or proceeding under the Act, shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained therein. 16. Section 9D of the Act came in from detailed consideration and examination, by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udication proceedings, of the statement, recorded before a gazetted Central Excise Officer during inquiry or investigation, would arise only after the statement is admitted in evidence in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause (b) of Section 9D(1). The rigour of this procedure is exempted only in a case in which one or more of the handicaps referred to in clause (a) of Section 9D(1) of the Act would apply. In view of this express stipulation in the Act, it is not open to any adjudicating authority to straightaway rely on the statement recorded during investigation/inquiry before the gazetted Central Excise Officer, unless and until he can legitimately invoke clause (a) of Section 9D(1). In all other cases, if he wants to rely on the said statement as relevant, for proving the truth of the contents thereof, he has to first admit the statement in evidence in accordance with clause (b) of Section 9D(1). For this, he has to summon the person who had made the statement, examine him as witness before him in the adjudication proceeding, and arrive at an opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ambika International, the Chhattisgarh High Court held: "9.3 A conjoint reading of the provisions therefore reveals that a statement made and signed by a person before the Investigation Officer during the course of any inquiry or proceedings under the Act shall be relevant for the purposes of proving the truth of the facts which it contains in case other than those covered in clause (a), only when the person who made the statement is examined as witness in the case before the court (in the present case, Adjudicating Authority) and the court (Adjudicating Authority) forms an opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in the evidence, in the interest of justice. 9.4 The legislative scheme, therefore, is to ensure that the statement of any person which has been recorded during search and seizure operations would become relevant only when such person is examined by the adjudicating authority followed by the opinion of the adjudicating authority then the statement should be admitted. The said provision in the statute book seems to have been made to serve the statutory purpose of ensuri....