TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on specific information that certain importers were engaged in undervaluation of welding machines imported from various China-based suppliers, the DRI, New Delhi initiated investigation. One such importer taken up for investigation is the respondent herein, a proprietrix firm managed by her husband. The respondent imported welding machines, welding equipment's, parts and accessories from China and their main suppliers were M/s. Grand Bless Technology Co. Ltd. M/s. Shenzhen General Welder Technology Co. Ltd., M/s. Shenzhen Jone Welding Technology Co. Ltd. etc. The goods imported by them were unbranded. After importing the goods the respondent used to put their own brand name 'Weltronix' on the goods before selling them. The respondent mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r but disregarded clear evidence, including the importer's voluntary statement to the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not retracted during investigation. The retraction only occurred after the Show Cause Notice was issued, suggesting it was an afterthought. The importer's own data on import rates almost matched Department evidence for the relevant period, yet this was overlooked. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate the fact as to how voluntary payments towards differential duty made by the importer by various instalments over a period of time can be construed as non-voluntary. The Authority also failed to recognize that voluntary payments towards duty difference further support the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared values were rejected as per Explanation (1) (iii) (1) to Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, as if the respondent have produced fraudulent or manipulated documents. Further, values were re-fixed under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. vii) The statements dated 18.11.2019 and 22.12.2020 were only dictated by the officers of DRI. viii) If the letter dated 18.12.2020 was truly prepared by the respondent what was the necessity for him visit to Delhi on 22.12.2020. They should have sent it by post and paid the differential duty at Chennai. ix) There is no signature of the officers, who recorded the statement dated 22.12.2020: x) The copies of the letter dated 18.12.2020 statements date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concept of "beneficial owner" is unwarranted in these circumstances. Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal managed business operations as the spouse of the Proprietrix. xiv) The allegations appear intended only to impose penalties on both the company and Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal. This approach also aims to justify simultaneous application of Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, notwithstanding restrictions under Section 114A. xv) No evidence has been provided to support the allegation of payment of differential amounts to supplier representatives. The Ld. Counsel stated that, in as much as, the Revenue has not provided any contrary evidence even after adjudication, he prayed that the Revenue's appeal against the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or in the absence of response from the importer, the proper officer has to apply his mind and decide whether or not reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the value so declared persists. (d) When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. (f) The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy of the declared value on 'certain reasons' which could include the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. (g) The proper officer, on a request made by the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the investigation like not making an attempt to retrieve deleted electronic documents from the importers phone or by using a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, that was not recorded before any officer, let alone a gazetted one. Hence the attempt to enhance the value of the imported goods fail and so does the demand for duty as rightly held by the Ld. Original Authority. 4.3 Moreover since no goods have been seized, as discussed at para 4.11.2 of the impugned order, the question of redemption fine does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector Vs Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (163) E.L.T. A160 (S.C.)], dismissed the SLP against the judgment and order dated 04/08/1992 of the Bombay....