TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 and 11 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, (b) confiscation of the seized Load cells, (c) demand of differential Customs duty alongwith interest and (d) imposition of penalty. Initially, Proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked in the SCN dated 03.10.2012 but subsequently, vide corrigendum dated 15.04.2014, Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked for demanding the differential duty. One more show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 was issued to the appellant in respect of previous imports of Load cells in 2009 and 2010 proposing- (a) rejection of declared assessable value and redetermination of value (b) confiscation of the goods (c) demand of differential Customs duty of Rs. 47,88,684/- under Proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest and (d) penalty under Section 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1 The first show cause notice was decided by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 18.03.2014 wherein he rejected the declared value and re-determined the value of the imported goods confiscated the seized goods having revised value of Rs. 54,79,156/- under Section 111....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. 2014-TIOL-39 CESTAT-Del (2) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C) (3) A.G. Incorporation V/s. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2013 (287) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. Delhi) (4) Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar V/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd.) 2012 (279) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. Ahmd.) (5) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV V/s. Nath International2012 (278) E.L.T. 463 (Tri. Del.) (6) M/s. Kalsi Machinery Pvt. Ltd-2011(264) E.L.T. 318 (Tribunal- Delhi) (7) Commr. of Cus. (Preventive), Gujarat V/s. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. 2008 (227) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) (8) Mihir Enterprises V/s. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai 2008 (227) E.L.T. 75 (Tri.-Mumbai) (9) Shri Shiv Shakti Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2007 (213) E.L.T. 673 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (10) Suyog Extrusions V/s. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai 2007 (213) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. Mumbai) (11), Super Duper T.V. V/s Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2007 (220) E.L.T. 506 (Tri. -Chennai) (12) H.T. Company V/s. Commissioner of Cus., Hydrabad-2007 (208) E.L.T. 507 (Tri. Bang.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly. h) Intent to evade payment of Customs duty has been alleged on the ground that import documents show the items as "Load cells" but the bills of entry show the description of item as "semifinished". This allegation is not correct in view of the certificate given by the overseas supplier. i) Their request to cross-examine crucial witnesses has been denied. Once cross-examination is denied, such statements cannot be relied upon against them for confirmation of the allegations. j) The seized goods have been confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 13.50Lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. They strongly opposed redemption fine in appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) but these have not been discussed. k) In respect of previous imports, the assessed goods were given out of charge by the proper officers after verification of the documents and examination of the goods. As these assessments were not challenged by the department, redetermination of value of imported goods after a period of one year is not sustainable and so, the show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 is barred by limitation in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following issues emerge in this case: - (a) Whether Corrigendum to the show cause notice can be issued after intimation of the adjudication proceedings have begun? (b) Whether assessment of goods can be reopened once it is finalised and goods given out of charge? (c) Whether allegations of undervaluation of imported goods in this case are sustainable? 5.1 Regarding (a), learned Advocate has argued that as per CBIC Circular No. 732/48/2003-Cx dated 05.08.2003, corrigendum to a show cause notice can be issued within one month of the issue of original SCN and that, it should not enhance the scope of the main show cause notice. In any case, it should not be issued once adjudication proceedings have been initiated. Having gone through this circular, we find that this circular deals with in delay in issue of Adjudication order/Appellate order after personal hearing and as such, is silent on the point raised by the learned Advocate. We find that this issue was dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Atuodesk India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi reported at 2019 (20) GSTL 581 (Tri. -Del.) wherein in para 10, it has been observed that "Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the provisions which Noticee has to answer and does not bring about substantive changes in the basis of duty liability, then same can be issued in reasonable time, if not to detriment of assessee. 5.2 Regarding issue (b), learned Advocate has contended that past imports undertaken by them in 2009-10 where goods were examined, bills of entry were assessed and thereafter the goods were given out of charge. The department has now reopened these assessments by way of issue of show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 challenging the value declared by them in the respective bills of entry. His contention is that the assessment once finalised and not challenged by the department, cannot be reopened. We in this case find that the issue of undervaluation of imported goods was investigated by the department by way of searching the premises of the importer. During such search, the officers recovered several incriminating documents and also recorded the statements of the Proprietor as well as Managing Partner of the company. The proprietor of the company in fact had admitted undervaluation of imported goods and also accepted redetermination of value on the basis of insurance policy. It is on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sponding bills of entry number and date and declared FOB value. In the show cause notices, value of imported goods has been determined on the basis of value shown in the insurance policy and taking this value to be 110% of the actual value, Revenue by reverse calculation, has determined the assessable value of the goods and calculated the differential duty. Learned Advocate has assailed these calculations saying that they had imported semi-finished goods and accordingly declared value in the bills of entry which was in tune with the identical goods imported at other ports. To prove their point, they relied on the certificate issued by the overseas supplier. We find that this argument of the importer has been discussed by the lower authorities and rightly rejected. The tests like temperature compensation and zero span done on imported Load cells as stated by Sri Viral Gayakwad, Managing Partner of the Appellant before the repacking the load cells for sale in the open market in the name of M/s Rudra Sensor does not make them semifinished as these tests in any case would be required before marketing the products to their customers. 5.4 The case laws cited by the appellant, no doubt....