TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,313/- (US $ 42,441), vide bill of entry No. 3174066 dated 11.04.2011. The goods were supplied by M/s. Shenzhen SBC Photoelectricity Co. Ltd., China. On the basis of intelligence, the officers of SIIB that the goods have been mis-declared and under-valued. Searched the residence of the Proprietor, Shri S Suresh on 21.04.2011. During the search, it appears Shri Suresh took a print-out of a contract in 14 pages from his e-mail account and handed over the same to the officers, stating that it was the original contract entered into between him and the foreign supplier; and also that the contract copy was not signed by both the parties. 2.1 Based on a statement given by the proprietor on 21.04.2011 that he had visited China and entered into a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and argued for the appellant and submitted that the finding of the lower authorities that the contract seized from the Appellant's premises is the original sales contract and that it was signed on 15.01.2011 is factually incorrect. Referring to the mahazar dated 21.04.2011, the Learned Advocate submitted that it was clearly mentioned therein that the contract has not been signed by both the parties. It is submitted that when the contents of a document is in dispute, the department is obliged to serve a copy of the same to the Appellant following the principles of natural justice but it has not been done. 4.2 The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the finding of the lower authorities that the contract was signed on "15.01.2011" stems from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order Nos. 40631-40635/2023) to submit that until the product details such as quality, size, country of origin, supplier, quantity imported, commercial level, etc., are established by the department, such imports cannot be relied on as contemporaneous imports. 4.5 Regarding penalty, the Learned Advocate submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 is not warranted and is liable to be set aside as the Appellant had no intention or knowledge of making, signing or using any declaration, statement or declaration which is false or incorrect in any material particular. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Suresh Kumar Agarwal [2024 (6) TMI 779 CESTAT Mumbai], which has been followed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We find that the original adjudicating authority rejected the Appellant's contention that the contract is a model contract by holding as under: - "Even assuming the said contract a proforma model contract as averred by the importer, he ought to have produced before the adjudicating authority the actual sales contract to prove that it was so. In the absence of actual sales contract or payment particulars through Banks, the adjudicating authority is handicapped to take the submissions of the importer as true." Thus, it is accepted by the Department that payment made through bank is sufficient to determine the value of the imported goods. In this regard, we find that the appellant in their reply to the Show Cause Notice had submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e accepted as the transaction value under Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. 11. We do not find a copy of the draft contract which was reportedly retrieved from the Appellant's computer on the date of search i.e., 21.04.2011 and which was signed by the Appellant on 14 pages. The Authority has relied upon this unsigned draft contract copy for redetermination of the value. Though the Appellant has repeatedly pleaded for supply of a copy of the contract, this was not given to submit his defense. Events in this appeal further indicate that the Bill of Entry No. 3174066 dated 11.04.2011 was filed by the Appellant and his office-cum-residential premises was searched on 21.04.2011 where his statement was als....