TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the Principal Appellant. During the course of the investigation, with respect to two Bills of Entry, viz., Bill of Entry No. 100964 dated 03.08.2005 and Bill of Entry No. 417629 dated 03.11.2005, DRI noted that 500 Kgs of 'Processed Coral Waste" ('impugned goods') had been imported from E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hongkong. At the time of import, the Principal Appellant declared the CIF value of the impugned goods as USD 5,900/-. The department enhanced the value of the impugned goods to USD 13 per unit, and the said B/E was assessed accordingly. (iii). With respect to the earlier Bill of Entry No. 100964 dated 03.08.2005, the DRI vide letter dated 20.02.2008 to the Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India, Dubai sought for overseas enquiries in respect of export declarations/ documents filed by the exporter before Dubai customs authorities the actual description and value transaction declared at the overseas port. The Consul (Economic), Consulate General of Dubai vide their letter 27.03.2008 No. CE/IV/III/2008 dated 27.03.2008 informed that as per the Dubai customs authorities, 209 Kgs. (8pcs.) of "C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....All the purported evidence relied upon in the present proceedings had been applied solely on the basis of extrapolation, without any direct or material evidence with respect to import made qua the subject Bill of Entry. 3.1 Learned counsel further stated that the entire investigations had relied on evidence relating to Bill of Entry No. 100964. In fact, the impugned Order simply stated that since goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 100964 and the subject Bill of Entry were same, the entire investigation carried out with respect to the former Bill of Entry would mutatis mutandis apply qua the subject Bill of Entry also. He contended that Department had led no evidence with respect to the imports made vide the subject Bill of Entry, apart from two statements, which were retracted subsequently. Further, learned counsel contended that there was no evidence led by the department to substantiate the allegation of mis-declaration and undervaluation of the impugned goods imported vide the subject Bill of Entry, apart from the retracted statements. The entire duty demand had been raised and confirmed without providing any direct clinching evidence of mis-declaration or undervaluation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Port), Kolkata [Final Order No. 76880/2025 dated 10.07.2025 - CESTAT Kolkata], to buttress these submissions. He added that except the statements of the individuals, the department had not brought on record any other corroborative evidence to allege mis-declaration and undervaluation of the impugned goods. 3.3 Learned counsel also stated that apart from extrapolating past investigations and placing reliance statements which were subsequently retracted, the department had not produced any cogent evidence to support the allegation that the appellant had fraudulently mis-declared the goods and short-paid the duty. He submitted that the Principal Appellant had adduced the invoice of the impugned goods supplied by the supplier, viz., E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hong Kong, which specifically mentioned that the item as "processed coral waste" with the value as USD 5,900/- (CIF) for 500Kgs.Further, the Principal Appellant had also produced a declaration from the supplier (E.T.N. Industries Ltd., Hong Kong) certifying that the exported goods were indeed "Processed Coral Waste", though, the impugned Order gave no cogent finding on either the invoice or the declaration. The Principal Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Appellant had actually imported 'Coral', by mis-declaring them as „Processed Coral Waste‟, by suppressing the actual value and mis-declaring the description. He contended that the Consulate General of India, Dubai had supplied the information of actual transaction value in respect of the earlier consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 100964, dated 03.08.2005 filed by the importer, this fact of undervaluation was confirmed and accepted by Shri Saket Agrawal and Shri Satish Kumar in their respective statements both dated 03.07.2008. As the impugned consignment imported under Bill of Entry No. 417629, dated 03.11.2005 related to the identical goods, i.e., 'Coral', imported earlier for which overseas investigation had been done. Therefore, the actual transaction value had been re-determined in respect of the impugned consignment. Learned authorised representative also submitted that the correct transaction value as declared before Dubai Customs and as accepted by Shri Saket Aggarwal and Shri Satish Kumar, is the correct Free on Board value. In this regard, the appellant did not produce any document showing the exact amount of payment for Freight and Insura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms through the Consulate General of India, Dubai, who reported that enquiries with Dubai Customs revealed that the exporter viz., M/s Himani Trading had declared export of 209 kgs of Coral valued at US $12400, vide letter dated 27.03.2008, which is reproduced herein below: "CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA CE/IV/III/2/2008 March 27, 2008 --------- --------- --------- Sub: Investigations into the imports made by M/s. Kartik Traders, Ghaziabad- Reg. ------- -------- 1. ........................................................................................................ 2. The matter was taken up for enquiry with the Customs authorities of Dubai and other countries. As per the information furnished by Dubai Customs authorities in respect of the consignment at Sl. No.6 of Annexure-A to the letter dated 20.2.2008 of DRI, New Delhi, 209 Kgs. (8 pcs) of Coral valued at US $ 12,400 were exported by M/s. Hemani General Trading LLC, Dubai vide Export Bill No. 1115 0080 9511 dated 2T. 1.2005 by Flight Al 746 on 31.7.2005. .................................................................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SHEET II to the SCN [indicated in paragraph 10 (a) above] is based on the EXCEL sheet recovered from the Pen drive recovered from the residence of Shri Sachdev of the respondent and the copies of invoices recovered from the office of the respondent. As for the imports listed in WORKSHEET IIIA to the SCN [ indicated in paragraph 10(b) above] and WORKSHEET IV to the SCN [ indicated in paragraph 10(c) above], they are based on projections and extrapolations. Since the officers found some reason to reject the transaction value in imports covered by WORKSHEET II, it is also proposed to be rejected in the imports covered by the other two worksheets. We do not find any legal provision by which the transaction value can be rejected by extrapolation. As we explained above, each import is an assessment by itself and is appealable and if there are a hundred imports at different transaction values, duty on each import must be determined based on the transaction value of that import. If the transaction value is higher in any one case, that, by itself cannot form the basis for assessment of other imports. Conversely, if the transaction value in any one case is lower, the importer cannot ask for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e values cannot also sustain." [emphasis supplied] 6.4 We also take note of the Tribunal's decision in Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vishakhapatnam [2005(186) E.L.T. 583 (Tri.-Del.)], as relied by the learned Counsel wherein it was held that a demand cannot be confirmed only basis an investigation carried out for the past period or on the presumption that the same modus operandi would have been carried out in respect of all the imports. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter: "2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the demand has been confirmed only on the basis of evidence in respect of a prior period. This is even more clearly established by the finding of the Commissioner in para 21 of the impugned order wherein he has held that "there is no evidence for the period beyond November 2002 as there is no investigation into the issue and there is no need for such investigation as it is not possible to raid and search every buyer every time for all the future periods to uncover the same set of evidences". There is no evidence for the period in dispute. The earlier evidence is adopted for the reason that there is no evidence t....