TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were released on Bond. 2. It appears that based on specific intelligence to the effect that various importers of plastic re-processed granules including M/s.S.B.B. International and M/s.Ankit Impex, Delhi were resorting to undervaluation of their imports and thereby evading payment of appropriate duties of Customs, investigation was initiated by the DRI resulting in consequential search at the premises of Shri Vijay Gupta, Director of M/s.S.B.B. International and Shri Ankit Gupta, Proprietor of M/s.Ankit Impex in the presence of S/Shri Vijay Gupta Ankit Gupta and other independent witnesses. During the search, it appears that incriminating documents including actual invoice bearing No.YS 090711 dated 07.07.2009 pertaining to Bill of Entry No.268168 dated 22.07.2009 was recovered and seized under Mahazar dated 17.07.2009. Further, 2 MTs of recycled plastic granules totally valued at Rs.1,28,865/- were also seized under mahazar dated 07.01.2020. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that imported items viz. Recycled LDPE Granules are not assessable with the value declared in the Bills of Entry listed in Annexure A & B to the SCN, but on the value re-determined with the actual Invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....168 dated 22.07.2009 having been carried out by the DRI officers. Shri Ankit Gupta in his voluntary statements appear to have agreed that the recovered invoice is the actual invoice of the supplier and the one submitted to the Customs was fabricated, to evade payment of Customs duty by M/s.Ankit Impex and M/s.S.B.B. International. Thus, it is held to have proved that the importer had undervalued subject import goods by submitting false invoices at the time of filing the said Bills of Entry to the Customs. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority was of the view that the importer had knowingly submitted the false invoices in respect of the subject Bills of Entry with an intention to evade appropriate Customs duties. Accordingly, he has held that the transaction value under Rule 3(1) of CVR 2007 declared by the importer in respect of 27 Bills of Entry except Bill of Entry No.268168 dated 22.07.2009 is incorrect and the same is to be rejected under Rule 12 (1) of CVR 2007 for assessment to duty. It is further observed that the imported item is reprocessed LDPE Granules, the contemporary database values of identical goods and similar goods were not congenial to be taken under rule 4 & 5 of CV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to them along with the SCN, as against which the Adjudicating Authority asserts that the RUDs were given along with the SCN, but the same does not go well with his own findings at paras 3.A & B of the Οrder-in-Original. 9. This apart, the other ground urged during the hearing before us is the sustainability of demand raised Under Section 28 of the Act primarily on the ground that the consignments in question were cleared provisionally while awaiting test reports and hence, no demand could be raised under Section 28 ibid. Ld. Advocate thus contended that when the assessment itself was not finalised, raising demand by invoking Section 28 ibid is too premature, that none of the requirements of said section has been held to be unfulfilled by the Appellant and hence, the Adjudicating Authority has only jumped the gun in a haste. 10. In this regard, Ld. Advocate has placed reliance on a decision/Order of this very Chennai Bench in the case of M/s. Shami Impex and Others Vs Commissioner of Customs [Final Order Nos. 40819-40823/2024 dated 09.07.2024] wherein the Bench has set aside the demands raised under Section 28 ibid. 11. We have perused the above decision/Order and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2000, consignments of the said goods imported by the petitioners, covered by 54 bills of entry, were provisionally assessed under Heading 21.06 as per the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Port) in File No. S202 Gr. I (P) 29/97A dated 27th March, 1997. *****. *****. ***** 6. Even before finalization of assessment, a demandcum-show cause notice dated 4th July, 2001 was issued to the petitioners under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, inter alia demanding Rs. 4,15,03,279/- along with penalty and interest. 7. The short question involved in this writ application is whether any show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be issued, unless there has been final assessment. *****. *****. ***** 18. The submission of the respondents, that what is relevant is the substance of the show cause notice and not its form, may be correct. It is, however, difficult to accept the argument that the show cause notice is, for all practical purposes, under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 19. As rightly argued by Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, there is no provision for issuance of show cause notice for fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued." (emphasis added) 8.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Jaju Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) & Others [2017 (354) ELT 614 (Cal) / 2017 (7) TMI 633 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], considered the issue with regard to the demand raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the assessment was only provisional. It was observed that when the duty to be paid is yet to be finalised the importer cannot be saddled with the guilt of not paying the duty or short paying the duty. The relevant Paragraph reads as under:- "2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had imported certain materials into India. The petitioner had applied under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The application under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1962 has not been finally adjudicated upon under Section 18(2) of such C/40144/2019 Act. Without a final adjudication under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1962, the authorities have sought to invoke Section 28 of the Act of 1962, read with Section 124 thereof. He submits that, the authorities are entitled to invoke Section 28 of the Act of 1962, if and only ....