TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shilpa Abrasive Manufacturing Company, Secundrabad, (iii) M/s Venkatesh Textiles, Madurai, (iv) M/s Gujarat Pickers, Ahmedabad and (v) M/s Tower Overseas Ltd., Ahmedabad where the DRI observed that these importers were importing PVC Flex sheets of different GSM from China whose value was higher than the value at which goods were imported by M/s Ruchi Enterprise. The samples drawn from the goods of the appellant were tested by the CRCL which determined the GSM of the goods ranging from 306 to 629.8. After completing the investigation, DRI issued a show cause notice dated 10.03.2008 proposing confiscation of the seized goods under section 111(m), rejecting the value declared in the Bills of Entry, demanding differential duty of Rs. 12,93,381/- along with interest and penalty on the importer under Section 112/ 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1 The above show cause notice was decided by the adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 31.03.2009 wherein he confiscated the seized goods valued Rs. 8,07,631/- and gave the importer to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-, rejected the declared value in respect of consignments imported by the appellant and re- determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not correct. The goods imported by them are not of any standard size or of standard GSM and therefore, its value is always less than the standard quality goods. They relied on the following decisions:- Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs D.M. International, 2009 (238) ELT 132 (Tri. Del.) Bansal Industries 2002 (147) ELT 967 (Chennai) S. V. International vs Commr. of Customs, Kolkata 2004 (166) ELT 405 (Tri. Kolkata) Multi Trade Overseas, 2004 (172) ELT 397 (Del.) * Rejection of declared value in the absence of knowledge of exact GSM of the imported goods is not sustainable in the present case. They also mentioned that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varsha Plastics and Ukkuru International Trade relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable as both the cases clearly deal with mis-declaration of imported goods which is not the case here. * Reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the letter dated 15.02.2008 of the Proprietor is not correct as the said letter was subsequently withdrawn/ retracted vide letter dated 20.02.2008. * Demand is time barred as the imports were made during the period 30.10.2006 to 25.06.2007 whereas the show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Learned Advocate, we find that para 6 deals with all that is required for implementation of provision of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Para 6 is reproduced below : "6. In this connection, we have perused the provisions of Rule 12, which enables the rejection of declared assessable value. The said rules provide for proper officer seeking clarification from the importer to provide further information to satisfy the correctness of the declared assessable value. In the present case, the appellants did submit the invoice, purchase order and supporting contract documents with reference to the impugned consignments. Nothing more is required with the importer to further substantiate the value. In such situation, it is for the assessing officer to discount the documents with valid reasons in order to reject the declared value and thereafter to proceed with the reassessment, after due enhancement. Explanation (1)(i)(iii)(a) in Rule 12 appears to be applicable to the present case. In other words, the assessing officer having noticed higher value of contemporaneous import raised the doubt regarding the correctness of declared value. The legal provisions mentioned in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th consequential relief. 4. Learned Authorised Representative, on the other hand, reiterated that the findings of the lower authorities are on merits. He submitted that the appellant was summoned to appear on 07.02.2008 but instead of appearing on that date, they sent a letter dated 15.02.2008 admitting purchase of imported goods at higher value. In the said letter, it is clearly mentioned that they had purchased initial 5 consignments @ 900 USD per MT but paid duty by taking value @ 750 USD per MT whereas the last consignment was purchased @ 1000 USD per MT but duty was paid @ 850 USD per MT. Learned AR impresses that admittal of undervaluation by the proprietor of the company, amounts to misdeclaration of the imported goods by the appellant. He also highlighted that the searches at the premises of other importers engaged in import of similar goods revealed that overseas invoices were discarding the GSM, length, width, breadth, number of rolls, square meters, backlit and front lit and SKU as unit quantity whereas the invoices produced by the present appellant do not contain these details which shows their intention to undervalue the goods. Regarding the appellant claim of low qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the bills of entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the bills of entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value.' (Emphasis Supplied) In Paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, a comparative table of the goods subject matter of this appeal imported by the appellant and the goods imported by the appellant earlier has been incorporated. After due consideration, the adjudicating authority and CESTAT found the goods identical to/similar to the ones imported earlier. We have perused the said table. We find that except for the description as an "unpopular brand," the products appear to be identical/similar. In any case, the factual finding rendered by CESTAT is after a detailed consideration of the material on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RI for release of their detained goods which have not been released till date. They were pressurized by the DRI to pay additional duty unconditionally to get the goods released. Due to this harassment and to buy mental peace, they have written letter dated 15.02.2008 under stress admitting to pay additional duty on the goods imported by them." The above makes it clear that so called admittal letter dated 15.02.2008 on which department has placed heavy reliance is not a voluntary admission. Such a letter therefore, cannot be treated as admissible evidence, and hence, cannot be relied to sustain charges of undervaluation. We rely on the following cases. * Vinod Solanki vs UOI reported at 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC) "34. A person accused of commission of an offence is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the confession is voluntary in nature and not obtained as an outcome of threat, etc. if the same is to be relied upon solely for the purpose of securing a conviction. With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e imported flex sheets in sqm, the department has divided weight of the flex sheets in gms by the GSM. Thus, we find that the entire calculation of the department for alleging undervaluation and demanding the differential duty in this case is based on the assumptions. While applying value on the basis of documents recovered from the premises of other importers, the department has failed to establish - (a) whether supplier of the goods was same?, (b) whether imported goods were identical or similar?, (c) whether comparative value pertains to imports during the same period?, (d) volume of the goods of which price is compared. We find that in this case the supplier is different and the similarity of the goods has not been established. Therefore, in our view adoption of value on the basis of invoices recovered from other importers during search of their premises cannot be justified for alleging under- valuation in the instant case. We rely on the decision in case of Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector of Customs 1998 (3) SCC 292, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that the burden of proving a charge of undervaluation lies upon the revenue. Para 13 of the order is reproduced: "13. The l....