TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been filed against same Order-in Appeal. Therefore, heard simultaneously to decide together. 3. The fact in brief, as per appellants that the appellants issued one (1) Purchase Order (PO) No. PFW/020/2009-10 dated 25.05.2009 to their parent company for purchase of Steel bars of various lengths. The PO contained two separate offers i.e., 400001382 and 400001383 of 86,139.67 Euro each and C&F charges of 6,030 Euro. Based on the PO, the parent company exported goods against 3 invoices. The goods were shipped vide Bill of lading dated 24.06.2009 and reached Visakhapatnam on 28.07.2009. All the relevant information, documents and invoices in original were handed over to M/s Sea Bird Sea and Air Logistics Division, a CHA for clearing the imported goods. The two (2) offer numbers with equal quantity and amount mentioned in the PO created confusion in the mind of the CHA. The CHA believed that only one offer number and only one invoice (Invoice No. 208/10034202 dated 16.06.2009) is required to be taken into account. Further, CHA could not understand what was meant by 'carriage sale' (4020 Euro), as mentioned in invoice. In this confusion, CHA requested the appellant to amend the PO an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s factory premises on 15.02.2010 and seized the imported goods. To avoid interruption of the production plan, the appellant's deposited the differential duty, SVB charges, interest, etc. and got the goods were provisionally released vide letter dated 29.08.2010. 7. Thereafter, summons were issued to various personnel of the appellants and the CHA and statements were recorded. Based on the said investigation, SCN F. No. S 22/MISC/22/2008 SIIB dated 05.07.2010 and in parallel the matter was referred to SVB in respect of the declared value on account that it was a related party transaction. 8. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 11/2012 27.12.2012 passed the order as follows: ORDER (i) I hold that the value of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 555348 dated 31.08.2009 as Euro 219,548.68 CIF which works out to Assessable value of Rs 1,54,24,836/- under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1972 read with Order-in-Original No. 18625/2012 dated 31.03.2012 of SVB, Chennai. (ii) I hold that the importer had suppressed and willfully mis-declared the facts resulting in short levy/ short collection of duty. I therefore, confirm the demand of short pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly) on Shri STP Srinivas, Asst. Manager, M/s. Sea Bird Sea & Air Logistics Pvt Ltd., Custom House Agent, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Appellant's filed an appeal before Learned Commissioner (Appeals). Who rejected the appeal and upheld the O-I-O. Hence, appellants filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant suo moto, through their CHA, intimated the Customs Department regarding non-inclusion of second and third invoices for payment of Customs duty at the time of import. The appellants voluntarily deposited differential duty before 3 months the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The price declared by the appellants has been confirmed by CESTAT, Chennai vide Final Order No. 40450/2024 dated 24.04.2024. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the investigation emanated from the appellant's voluntary disclosure of facts through its CHA and not on account of any independent detection of suppression or misstatement or collusion. The CHA admitted and took responsibility for the contraventions of invoice in respect of the subject imports. The appellant's only acted on the wrong advice o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....67/-. Therefore, importer & CHA have colluded willfully and misdeclared the value/ quantity of goods by suppressing the facts. The contention of appellant's was not bonofide. 16. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant Ms. Nandita Reddy and Learned Representative of the Department Shri B. Subhas Chandra Bose & Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao and perused the records with their submissions. 17. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.07.2010, whereas, differential duty along with interest was paid by the appellants prior to the issuance of such notice. The payment of differential duty has been showed by the table as below: Amount deposited towards Amount Deposited vide Differential duty Rs.12,46,584/- RD No. 15/02.03.2010 Rs. 8,67,609/- RD No. 55/17.03.2010 Interest Rs.1,59,374/- RD. 54/17.03.2010 1% EDD on related party transaction Rs. 66,935/- RD No. 14/02/03/2010 Deposit for release of goods Rs. 12,50,000/- RD No. 79/27.03.2010 18. The appellant states that when they reconciling records for costing purposes, they noticed that the duty was not discharge on the remaining 2 invoices, the appellants immediately brought the said disc....