AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter referred to as the second appellant). The DRI Ahmedabad conducted an investigation pursuant to intelligence received that the appellants were indulging in undervaluation of the said imported goods and that the differential amount of value was being passed on to the overseas suppliers by illegal means in order to evade customs duty. During investigation the statement of the second appellant was also recorded. The investigation culminated in a show cause notice dated 15.04.2008, inter-alia, proposing rejection of the declared value and redetermination of the same in terms of section 14 of the Customs Act 1962, read with Rule 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Customs Valuation (determination of price of imported goods) Rules, 1988, as applicable. The notice proposed demand of differential duty along with applicable interest as well as imposition of penalty under section 112 / section 114A of Customs Act 1962. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority, vide Order in Original No. 15578/2011, dated 31-03-2011, after rejecting the declared value and redetermination of the same, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,26,928/- under section 28 (2) of the Customs Act and under the proviso to secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds were originally cleared after examination by the officers and the demand is sought to be sustained merely on the basis of statement obtained from Sri Ashwini Kumar Kejiriwal without any corroborating evidence, and that to after 2-3 years after such clearance. The department has not seized any cash or document that shows any cash flow reflecting the suppressed portion of the transactions alleged to have been paid by the appellant at any point in time and as there is no evidence showing additional consideration flowing back from the appellant to the foreign suppliers, the rejection and redetermination of the value and consequent demand of duty was not in consonance with law. 6. Ld. Counsel would submit that the contemporaneous imports which formed the basis for the department's conclusion about undervaluation are not of the same period in as much as those imports were made in the year 2005 whereas the appellant's imports were in the year 2006 and that the import from different suppliers on different dates cannot be compared as the value also varies on account of various factors like discounts extended, bulk quantities etc. In fact, one of the imports was even from a dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - ND. • M/s. Mita India Pvt Ltd.Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-2023 (4) TMI - CESTAT New Delhi • Poonam Plastic Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 1989 (39) ELT 634 (Tribunal New Delhi) 9. Heard the rival submissions, perused the appeal records as well as the citations submitted as relied upon. 10. The issues that arise for our determination are whether the redetermination and consequent demand of duty as well as imposition of penalties in the fact circumstances of these proceedings are tenable. 11. We find that the imports have taken place from October 2005 to March 2006 and the show cause notice was issued in April 2008. It is not in dispute that the subject period was prior to the introduction of self-assessment and at the time of import, the goods were cleared on examination and assessment by the proper officer. Undisputedly, the proper officer had granted such clearance only after the goods were assessed at a value enhanced as found appropriate by the said officer. In the instant case the redetermination of value and demand of differential duty as well as consequent penalties imposed are sought to be sustained principally on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack of consideration related to the impugned imports, invoice value cannot be enhanced, more so when the Revenue has already enhanced the value and assessed the duty accordingly at the time of import. In this regard, it would be apposite to note what has been held by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in similar circumstances in the decision in Junaid Kudia v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Import-II, (2024) 16 Centax 503 (Tri-Bom), which is as under: " 14. Further, we also find that in respect of disputed imported goods, Bills of entry were already been assessed at the time of importation of the goods and hence, further proposal to re-enhance the value, in the eventuality, when the earlier assessment orders having not been appealed against/reviewed, have attained finality and accordingly, cannot be proceeded with for rejection of the declared value. In other words, there cannot be any re-assessment of the said values, which had become final for want of appeal against the same. Our views are supported by the judgments in case CC v. Lord Shiva Overseas (supra), Malhotra Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 561 (Tri.-Del.) and Commissioner of Cus....