TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Entry No. 4973274 dated 27.01.2018 for import of unbranded 17" LED TV and unbranded 19" LED TV from foreign supplier M/s RGB Digital Technology (Thailand) Co. Ltd., were examined by SIIB on 100% basis. The goods were found to be as per the Bill of Entry, commercial invoice and packing list. Representative sealed samples of both LED TVs were drawn at the time of examination of goods. As requested vide letter dated 21.03.2018, the goods were allowed to be stored in terms of Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962. The sealed samples of both kind of LED TV were examined by a technician in presence of the representative of the importer firm viz. Shri Gopi Goel (Karta of the firm), Customs officers and two independent witnesses. The back covers of the TV were removed and the metal sheet was found to have following description: (i) Both 17" LED TV Panel : Sticker affixed with brand logo with made in China Mark. (ii) 19" LED TV Panel : Sticker affixed with HannStar brand logo (HannStar Display Corporation) with Made in China Mark (iii) 19" LED TV Panel : Without any sticker 1.2 Statement of Shri Gopi Goel, the Karta of the appellant was recorded, who requested fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In addition to the said proposal, the show cause notice also proposed rejection of the transaction value in respect of the past Bills of Entry, redetermine the values and demand differential customs duty of Rs. 52,28,673/- along with interest and penalties. The said proposals have been confirmed vide the aforesaid order in original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard learned counsels for the appellant and learned Authorized Representative for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2021 has two proposals: (i) For the live Bill of Entry No. 4973274 dated 27.01.2018; (ii) For past Bills of Entry as mentioned in Annexure A2 to A7 to the show cause notice. With respect to the present/live Bill of Entry, it is submitted that the goods under the Bill of Entry were physically examined (100% check). On inspection, the goods matched with the commercial invoice and packaging list submitted by the appellant. The stickers of Samsung brand logo and HannStar brand both with "made in China" mark were the stickers only on one single part (TV panel) of TV imported by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween M/s Haiyan and M/s Ashoka Hardware again, the same is not relatable to the appellant. The said invoice has not been relied upon by the department (RUD by the department). The commercial invoice dated 2015 between Tree View Co, Ltd. and M/s Shigura Devices & Systems Pvt. Ltd. is also not relatable to the appellant. The said invoice pertains to the year 2015-16 whereas the appellant had imported the similar goods in 2017-18. The supplier is also otherwise different. Any comparison between these invoices and the invoices of the appellant with respect to Bill of Entries in question is an illegal, unjustified act on the part of the department for arriving at the differential value. With these submissions, learned counsel has prayed for order under challenge to be set aside the appeal to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings arrived at by the original adjudicating authority. The Department, upon investigation, established that the declared values did not reflect the actual transaction values. Evidence retrieved during the investigation, including invoices and sales contracts, clearly showed that: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms (Import), Nhava Sheva [2019 (369) ELT 1459 (Tri.-Mumbai)] With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard both the parties, perusing the entire record and taking into consideration the submissions of both the parties, it is observed that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2021 has raised demand with respect to : (A) one live Bill of Entry bearing No. 4973274 dated 27.01.2018 through which the appellant had imported 17" and 19" LED TV declaring them as unbranded with the declared value of Rs. 33,95,520/-; (B) Six past Bill of Entries for the year 2016 to 2018 through which the appellant had imported Drywall Screws. The department's case basically rested on the premise that the appellant suppressed the actual transaction values to evade the Customs duty as the appellant had repeatedly imported huge consignments of LED TVs and Screws and have cleared the same without payment of proper Customs duty. The findings with respect to both the said allegations are as follows: (A) Live Bill of Entry No. 4973274 dated 27.01.2018. 7.1 From the perusal of Show Cause Notice itself, para 2 thereof, it is coming as a clear admission that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has been objected. However, perusal reveals that it had details of Shri Harsh Mittal, proprietor of M/s Mittal Impex and not of the appellant. The appellants on the other hand has relied upon the Final Order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mittal Impex [Final Order No. 59726-59728 dated 18.11.2024] mentioning that in the said matter it has already been held that the branded product was merely LED curved panels and not other parts of the TV. The imported goods in the said case have been held to be rightly declared as unbranded. It has been held that due to sticker of a brand on one part of TV (LED panel) all parts and the TV cannot be called as branded. The certificate of origin was admittedly the original documents issued by Government of Thailand. Involvement of appellant as held by the adjudicating authority below, therefore has no basis. No evidence has been discussed nor even produced for proving the alleged involvement of appellant in getting the said certificate of origin. The mention of Shri Harsh Mittal in the said certificate has already been clarified as a typographical error vide letter dated 22.06.2021 as was received from foreign export. No evidence is produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc., without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 17. Only if the electronic record, is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to Customs Appeal No. 51482 of 2022 [DB] Customs Appeal No. 51457 of 2022 [DB] Customs Appeal No. 52216 of 2022 [DB] 28 the genuineness thereof and the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A-opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. 18. The Evidence Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62. Justice Nariman implies here that it is not necessary to refer to Section 62, as Section 65B(1) itself distinguishes between the original electronic record and the secondary copies of the electronic record." 7.5 In the present case, the documents were retrieved by the departmental officers. In that case, the above procedure was mandatory to be followed. In absence thereof and in light of above discussion, it is held that the retrieved proforma invoice are not admissible into evidence. Otherwise also to comparing the proforma invoices of the third person with the commercial invoice of the appellant and their supplier is highly unjustified. In the given circumstances, we do not find any reason to doubt the invoices submitted along with the Bill of Entry. The value mentioned therein as declared by the appellant at the time of filing the Bill of entry is, therefore, accepted. As a result the order rejecting the said value is held to be set aside. (B) Six Bill of Entries of the year 2016-2018: Following six Bill of Entries were filed by the appellant during the relevant time with the total declared value of Rs. 1,73,93,698/- for importing Drywall Screws (i) BOE 782....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 3. (2) At the request of an importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1). As already observed above that the value mentioned in the Bill of Entry were as per the invoice, packing list etc. Department failed to produce any evidence above the Drywall Screws to be undervalued. The appellant has regularly been importing the impugned goods. No evidence of any contemporaneous exports NIDB data produced. 7.6 In the present case, the supplier of Drywall Screw was M/s Haiyen Zhisheng Import and Export Co. Ltd. the appellant had no connection with M/s Shimai Industrial Company Ltd. Any allegation leveled based on the proforma invoi....