TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs (Port), Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001, adjudicating the Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2024 issued by the DRI. Appeal No. C/75844/2025: [filed by M/s. Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. Ltd.] 2. Customs Appeal No. 75844 of 2025 has been filed by M/s. Vivek Ply & Veneers Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as "VPVPL"] against the Order in Original No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/ADJN/25/2024 dated 26.12.2024, issued on 30.12.2024, wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata has rejected the declared value of the imported consignments of ordinary plywood imported by the appellant/VPVPL under 16 Bills of Entry. 2.1. During the disputed period i.e., 18th March, 2021 to 30th April, 2022, VPVPL has imported ordinary plywood from the Peoples Republic of China through Kolkata Port. Upon arrival of the imported consignments, respective Bills of Entry were filed by VPVPL for home consumption, which were duly assessed and allowed to be cleared by the jurisdictional Customs authorities upon payment of appropriate duties of customs. 2.2. On the basis of intelligence, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stage itself for non-fulfilment of the pre-deposit condition, vide Defect Misc. Order No. 58 dated 11.09.2025. Appeal No(s). C/75399, 75400 & 75402/2025: [filed by M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Radheysham Co.] 3. Customs Appeal Nos. 75399, 75400 and 75402 of 2025 have been filed by M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Radheysham Co. respectively challenging the demands confirmed against them in the Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/ ADJN/25/2024 dated 26.12.2024, issued on 30.12.2024. 3.1. The facts of these cases are that the said appellants were importing plywood from foreign suppliers located in China and claiming concessional Basic Customs Duty based on the Country-Of-Origin certificates. 3.2. Intelligence gathered by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata indicated that some importers of plywood from China are evading customs duty by way of gross undervaluation of the goods. On the basis of a specific intelligence, officers of DRI searched the residence of Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal, who is one of the Directors in M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 2,21,69,257 - 94,69,394 - 2,74,70,487 - Penalty u/s114A 2,21,69,257 - 94,69,394 - 2,74,70,487 - Duty - live consignment 7,59,541 - - - - - Penalty u/s112(a) 75,954 22,92,880 - 9,46,939 - 27,27,049 Penalty u/s112(b) - 22,92,880 - 9,46,939 - 27,27,049 Penalty u/s114AA - 49,18,11,785 - 23,97,79,180 - 63,27,25,675 Total 4,51,74,009 49,63,97,545 1,89,38,788 24,16,73,058 5,49,40,974 63,81,79,773 Redemption fine (10%) - past consignment 95,15,650 - 47,95,584 - 1,26,54,514 - Redemption fine (10%) - live consignment 3,20,586 - - - - - 3.8. Aggrieved by the confirmation of customs duties and imposition of penalties in the impugned order, Customs Appeal Nos. 75399, 75400 and 75402 of 2025 have been filed by M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Radheysham Co. respectively before this Tribunal. 3.9. Two appeals were also filed by Shri Banshidhar Agarwal, as Director of M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and Director o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer" to intimate the appellant/VPVPL "in writing" the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared, he has to provide reasonable opportunity to VPVPL of being heard before adjudicating a final decision under sub-rule 12(1). In this case, prior to issuance of the show cause notice this requirement of Rule 12(2) has not been satisfied. Thus, the condition precedent for rejecting the declared transaction values of the said goods have not been satisfied. Hence the assessable value / transaction value declared by the appellant in respect of the said goods imported under 16 bills of entry at the time of importation, were correct, legal and valid and consequently there has been no short payment of any differential customs duty payable in respect of the said goods. Therefore, the demand of differential customs duty confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE & ST Vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Private Ltd. 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC) and Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC) [3-Member Bench]. In both these decisions, the impugned adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proforma invoice also was not adopted to calculate the differential duty. (iv) From the proforma invoices relied upon it would be seen that each of them refer to several types/grades of plywood and their respective sizes and prices declared. However, each of the 16 bills of entry of the goods imported by this appellant referred to only a single type of goods i.e. "ordinary plywood", which the department contested not to be the correct description. The impugned order, therefore, followed the show cause notice in arbitrarily, picking and choosing one of the several items in the proforma invoices and substituting the same, again in an undisclosed manner. No basis has been disclosed in either the show cause notice or in the impugned order in support of this arbitrary action by the Commissioner. This also establishes the patent illegality of the purported redetermined assessable values of the said goods. (v) It is, thus, evident that, even assuming though denying that proforma invoices prices contained the actual value of the imported goods or their correct description even as per the same it is established that the redetermined assessable value of the said goods is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confession by the VPVPL's director, Mr. Vivek Toshniwal and in any event it is settled law that sole un-corroborated alleged confessional statement cannot be relied upon for establishing undervaluation of goods. (i) In support for undervaluation of the imported goods, the impugned order has relied upon the statement of its director, Shri Vivek Toshniwal, that extra amount of money was paid for the said goods by the VPVPL to the exporter Chinese company through their unnamed person who allegedly visited the appellant/VPVPL for collection of the said differential amount. However, not a single piece of evidence has been brought in by the investigation in support of this allegation. It is the submission of the appellant that the statement was obtained under coercion during the custody of the Director with DRI. Such a statement obtained under coercion cannot be relied upon, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs Ganpati Overseas (supra), para 28. The appellant submits that there is no corroboration from any other person or document which support this baseless allegation. As such this misconceived finding has no evidentiary value. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Cus (Preventive) Vs. Tanmay International, 2018 (363) ELT 181 (T), * G. K. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2004 (170) ELT 550 (T). (iii) Further the said proforma invoices recovered from the mobile phone of VPVPL's director are unattested copies. It is settled law that no presumption can be raised under Section 139 of the Act in respect of such unauthenticated documents. They are inadmissible and based thereon transaction value cannot be enhanced. (iv) Although they cannot be equated with computer print outs and are not listed in either Section 138C or Section 139 of the Act as specified documents, the requirements of Section 138C(2) of the Act must be satisfied to rely upon those documents as admissible evidence in any proceedings. The mandotory requirements are not satisfied in this case, the said proforma invoices cannot be relied upon to confirm differential duty against VPVPL. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision of this Hon'ble Bench in Shri Ranaji Ganguly Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) Final Order No. 75319/2025 dated 05.02.2025 passed in Customs Appeal No. 78278 of 2018 and the decision relied upon therein in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any contravention of the Act or any short-payment of duty, there can also be no basis for recovering any differential duty on the importation of the said goods. Thus, the appellant submits that the amounts wrongly appropriated towards such alleged short- payment ought to be refunded to the appellant with interest thereon, as applicable. (ii) In the instant case VPVPL was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on May 30, 2022. As per decision of the 9-Member Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC), such payment made during the course of the investigation / adjudication proceedings have to be held as paid under protest. In paragraph 146, of the judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, has observed as follows:- "146. .............................................................. .......................................................... Alternatively, it may be stated that duty paid in cases, which finally ended in orders or decrees or judgments of courts must be deemed to have been paid under protest. " (iii) Thus, the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Supra), * Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Finesse Creation Inc. 2009 (248) ELT 122 (Bom)- affirmed in Commissioner Vs. Finesse Creation Inc. 2010 (255) ELT A120 (SC). 4.1. In view of the above stated submissions, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of VPVPL prayed that their appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside, with consequential relief to them. 5. Shri. S. Jaikumar, Ld. Advocate and Shri Rinku Panbude, Ld. Consultant appeared on behalf of the other appellants viz. M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Radheysham Co. [Customs Appeal Nos. 75399, 75400 and 75402 of 2025]and assailed the impugned Order-in-Original on the following grounds:- (i) The confirmation of differential duties in the impugned order were solely on the basis of 19 proforma invoices alleged to have been recovered from the mobile phone of Mr. Vivek Toshniwal, Director of M/s. Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. Ltd., who happens to be their business competitor. (ii) The said proforma invoices have no connection, whatsoever, with the appellants. Neither the appellant's name is appearing as the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the statements given during the course of investigation can be relied upon only if they were examined during the adjudicating proceedings; thus, denial of cross examination would vitiate any reliance placed on such untested statements. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Geetham Steels Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem [2025(3) TMI 1098 - CESTAT Chennai]. Thus, in view of these submissions, it is the contention of the appellants that the purported proforma invoices issued in the name of another company, by an unconnected supplier, cannot be relied upon to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. (iii) With respect to the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, that the goods imported by the appellants are 'almost same' and there are lots of similarities with those imported by Mr. Vivek Toshniwal, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the distance between "almost same" and "same" is too long and cannot be bridged by a passing remark but has to be substantiated with evidence. With respect to the allegation of misrepresentation of des....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents recorded during the course of investigation. Accordingly, he prayed for upholding the demands of duty along with interest and penalties confirmed in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the documentary evidence available on record. 8. Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. Ltd. (VPVPL) 8.1. We observe that during the period from 18th March, 2021 to 30th April, 2022, the appellant namely, VPVPL, imported ordinary plywood from the Peoples Republic of China. Upon arrival of the imported consignments, the respective Bills of Entry filed by the appellant/VPVPL were duly assessed and allowed to be cleared by the jurisdictional Customs authorities upon payment of appropriate duties of customs. No question was raised regarding value of the goods declared by the appellant-VPVPL in the said Bills of Entry. 8.2. On 18.05.2022, officers of DRI conducted searches at the premises associated with VPVPL and other companies such as M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd. and also the Proprietor of M/s. Radheysham Co. During the course of such searches, the officers recovered 19 Proforma Invoices, which were in the name of the appellant - VPVPL. On the basis of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of this Bench in the case of Shri Ranaji Ganguly Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) Final Order No. 75319/2025 dated 05.02.2025 passed in Customs Appeal No. 78278 of 2018 and the decision relied upon therein in the case of Junaid Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Customs [(2024) 16 Centax 503(T)], affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Junaid Kedia [2024 (385) ELT 529 (SC)]. 8.5. In any event, we observe that the 19 proforma invoices involved covered only 5 consignments of the said goods imported in the year 2022. Therefore, as per settled law, we find that they cannot be used for determining or redetermining assessable value of goods imported much prior to that period. Thus, we hold that the said proforma invoices and the prices declared therein cannot be the basis for rejection of the value declared by the appellant in respect of the goods imported under the remaining 11 bills of entry. 8.6. From the impugned order, we observe that the officers have arbitrarily picked one of the several items in the proforma invoices and adopted that value for the goods imported by the appellant/VPVPL. We find that the ld. adjudicating authority has not disclosed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable. 8.8. We observe that there is no material on record and none have been disclosed as to whether and how the requirements of clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Rule 9(2) have been satisfied. Thus, it is evident that the purported redetermined value of the said goods is in gross violation of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. It is a settled law that the valuation under the Customs Act in respect of imported goods has to be done on the basis of the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods as per Section 14(1) of the Act and the burden of proof in this respect is on the Revenue. In the present case, we observe that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order relies on any data available on the National Import Database (NIDB) for sustaining the allegation/finding of undervaluation of the stated consignments. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Ld. adjudicating authority ought to have accepted the declared transaction value of the subject impugned consignments in terms of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules and there is no basis for rejecting the same. 8.9. In view of the above findings, we hold that the transaction value declared by the appellant-VPVPL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be treated as payments made under protest. In paragraph 146 of the above judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, has observed as follows:- "146. .............................................................. .......................................................... Alternatively, it may be stated that duty paid in cases, which finally ended in orders or decrees or judgments of courts must be deemed to have been paid under protest. " 8.11.2. Thus, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, we hold that the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- deposited by VPVPL should be considered as payment made under protest during the course of investigation and is liable to be refunded along with interest at the applicable rate. 9. M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Radheysham Co. 9.1. We observe that Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal operates three firms, namely:- (I) Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd.[as a Director] (II) Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd. [as a Director] and (III) Radheysham Co. [Proprietorship]. All three entities import plywood from foreign supplier for trading in India. 9.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts recorded during the course of investigation from various persons including Mr. Vivek Toshniwal, the Department is contending that the imports made by Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal and his associated entities are also undervalued. For ready reference, sample copies of a few of such invoices are reproduced below: • Proforma Invoice Pl NO: HX-IN-052 • Proforma Invoice Pl NO: HX-IN-049 • Proforma Invoice Pl NO: HX-IN-044 9.5. From the perusal of the said invoices and the submissions made by the appellants, we observe that, the foundation of the allegations made in these proceedings are stemming from the said 19 proforma invoices retrieved from a mobile phone belonging Mr. Vivek Toshniwal, Director of M/s. Vivek Ply, another importer of plywood. We have perused the said 19 proforma invoices, wherein, the same are from one M/s Linyi Haoxing China and consigned to M/s Vivek Ply. It is also an undisputed fact coming out from the relied upon documents (RUDs) that the said appellants have not imported a single consignment from M/s. Linyi Haoxing China during the entire period of transaction. We have also seen that the description mentioned in those prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Sai Impex - (S.C.). In the circumstances, we do not think that it is necessary to look into the issue whether it was open to the lower appellate authority to admit additional evidence. Valuation done by the original authority on the basis of quotation was not on any legally sustainable basis. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set things right. The impugned order does not call for interference. The appeal stands dismissed." 9.7. A Proforma invoice is a mere tentative document and it may undergo change. Hence, it holds no evidentiary value in the proceedings related to undervaluation. In this connection, we rely upon the decision of M/s. GK Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2004 (170) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it has been held as under: "5. We are not able to uphold the findings in the impugned orders either on the question of valuation or on the question of eligibility to exemption. It is well settled that a proforma invoice does not represent any actual transaction. It is only an offer price. An offer price cannot be the basis for rejecting a transaction value, particularly, when there is no material available on record to cast any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of mutality of interest between the seller and the buyer. In these circumstances there is no reason why the invoice price should not be accepted. The reasoning of the Collector is that the proforma invoice indicated higher price. The proforma invoice is in the nature of an offer and the Collector also gave a finding that it is in the nature of an offer and the appellants have been contending that they negotiated with the supplier and got the price reduced. The reasoning of the Collector is that the price was reduced because of the special relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier who looking into their long term interest agreed to supply the goods at a rate lower than the quotation/proforma invoice price, and therefore the invoice price is influenced by the special relationship. There is a fallacy in the reasoning of the Collector. Negotiations are a part of ordinary commercial dealings and on account of that it does not become extra-commercial consideration. Therefore, the order of the Collector cannot be substantiated in the absence of contemporary imports at higher prices. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by Shri Satish Kumar is not relevant as in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority for denial of the opportunity of cross examination to the appellants to be unconvincing. It is a settled legal principle that statements given during the course of investigation can be relied upon only if they have been examined during the adjudicating proceedings. Thus, we are of the view that denial of cross examination vitiates the entire proceedings, which have been built on the basis of such untested statements. A similar issue has been examined by the Tribunal, Chennai in the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Geetham Steels Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem [2025(3) TMI 1098 - CESTAT Chennai], wherein it has been observed as follows:- "57. If we notice the provisions of Section 9D, what flows from it is that 9D(1) stipulates when a statement given under section 14 would be relevant for the purpose of proving, "in any prosecution for an offence", the truth of the facts which it contains and provides for various scenarios in the sub- sections thereto at (a) and (b). It is only when the Department first adduces evidence in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority, of the existence of the aforementioned scenarios in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had deposed the contents of the statement and then take a considered decision whether the truth of the facts contained in the statement stand proved or disproved in the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, it is only after such examination in chief, that the adjudicating authority can arrive at a considered decision, whether to declare the witness appearing before it as a hostile witness and then to decide in the facts and circumstances whether to rely on the earlier statement; or if upon finding major inconsistencies between his earlier deposition and in the contradictions brought about in cross- examination, to not rely on the earlier statement; or if it is only minor discrepancies as that which does not majorly disturb the essential truth of his deposition, to rely upon it, if in the circumstances of the case, the adjudicating deems it fit in the interest of justice. 60. Therefore, we are of the view that Section 9D(2) not only legislatively mandates the adjudicating authority to apply the provisions of S.9D(1), depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, to the extent possible, but also when read along with Section 9D(1)(b), leads to the ine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....criminal in nature because it results in imposition of not only of duty but also of penalty and in many cases, it may also lead to prosecution. The provisions contained in Section 9D, therefore, has to be construed strictly and held as mandatory and not mere directory. Therefore, unless the substantive provisions contained in Section 9D are complied with, the statement recorded during search and seizure operation by the Investigation Officers cannot be treated to be relevant piece of evidence on which a finding could be based by the adjudicating authority. A rational, logical and fair interpretation of procedure clearly spells out that before the statement is treated relevant and admissible under the law, the person is not only required to be present in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority but the adjudicating authority is obliged under the law to examine him and form an opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice. Therefore, we would say that even mere recording of statement is not enough but it has to be fully conscious application of mind by the adjudicating authority that the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc., so as to contest the description of goods, we hold that the allegation of mis-classification made in the impugned order is not sustainable. 13. In view of the above findings, we hold that the allegations of mis-classification and undervaluation of the goods imported by the above said appellants are not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the demands of differential customs duty, along with interest, confirmed in the impugned order against the appellants herein mentioned at paragraph 9 (supra). 14. In respect of the order confiscation of the seized goods in these cases, we observe that these goods have been imported vide separate Bills of Entry and cleared on payment of appropriate duties of customs. No objections had been raised by the Revenue at the time of importation. As there is no mis-declaration or undervaluation in respect of the goods cleared under the 9 Bills-of-Entry in the case of M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. Ltd., 29 Bills-of-Entry along with Bill-of-Entry No. 8684073 dated 14.05.2022 (which is a live consignment) in the case of M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. Ltd. and 28 Bills-of-Entry in the case of M/s. Radheysham & Co., we hold that the order of confiscation vide the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that proprietary concern is merely the business name in which the proprietor carries on the business. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the said appellant prayed for quashing the penalty imposed on Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal, in his capacity as the proprietor of Radheysham Co as separate penalty has also been imposed on the Proprietorship firm. 16.1. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the impugned order, confirming the demands and imposing the penalties in respect of the appellant- firm, M/s. Radheysham Co., is extracted below:- "40.5. In respect of imports made by M/s Radheysham Co. (Noticee No.5): a) Upon M/s Radheysham Co. (Noticee No. 5): i. I reject the Assessable Value of Rs 2,89,22,992/- declared in the 28 Bills of Entry as detailed in the SCN filed by Noticee No. 5 under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and re-determine the same at Rs. 12,65,45,135/- under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007; ii. I hold the goods imported under the said 28 Bills of Entry having re-determined Assessable Value of Rs. 12,65,45,135/- liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. I impose a redemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the penalty imposed on him. Thus, we are of the view that the above decision cited by the appellant is distinguishable on facts and hence not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 16.4. We take note of the fact that penalties have been imposed on Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it is observed that appeal, if any, filed by Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal against the said penalties imposed on him, is not before us for consideration. Thus, we are of the view that Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal has to file a separate appeal to contest the penalties imposed on him under the Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 before this Tribunal. As the appeal, if any, filed by Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal is not before us, we are of the view that we cannot interfere with the penalties imposed on Mr. Banshidhar Agarwal as emanating from the impugned order. 17. In view of the above findings, we pass the following order: (i) We set aside the demands of differential customs duties confirmed in the impugned order qua against the appellants herein. (ii) We set aside the order of confiscation in respect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D3750,00 SIX FLOWER FACE. 4'XS'X2.4MM 300PCS USD4.08PC USD1224,00 BLACK BURL, 4'X8's2,4MM 500PCS USD4.15/PC USD2075.00 RECON TEAK 4'X8's2.4MM 500PCS USD4.42/PC USD2210.00 ARROW TEAK 4'X8'X2.4MM. SOOPCS USD4.35/PC USD2175.00 RECON CROWN TEAK 4"X8'X2,4MM 2000PCS USD4.68/PC USD9360,00 PLYWOOD, TEAK FACE. A GRADE. STRAIGHT LINE. (WITH LINE & WITHOUT LINE MIXED ) ECULYPTUS CORE. HARDWOOD BACK. 4'X8'X3.0MM 2200PCS USD6.00/PC USD13200.00 100%TT IN COMMODITY Total: UISD33994.00 BENEFICIARY ACCOUNT NUMBER: 101417 36595194 SWIFT CODE: CHASSGSGXXX OR CHASSGSG BENEFICIARY COUNTRY/REGION: SINGAPORE BENEFICIARY NAME: LINYI HAOXING ECONOMIC AND TRADE CO., LTD. BENEFICIARY ADDRESS: 8 SHENTON WAY, #45-01. AXA TOWER, SINGAPORE 068811 BENEFICIARY BANK: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., SINGAPORE BRASCH BENEFICIARY BANK ADDRESS: 168 ROBINSON ROAD. CAPITAL TOWER 17-04. SINGAPORE 068912 Seen BANK CODE: 7153 Vivek Toshnivel Page 100 of 2gdos|22 Document 3 LINYI HAOXING ECONOMIC AND TRADE CO., LTD. ZIIMADEN OFFICE, LINSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE, SHANDONG,CHINA TEL: 0086-539-8130798 FAX: 0086-539-8130559 PROFORMA INVOICE 170 PINO .: HIX-IN-044 VIVEK PL....