TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e officers of DRI conducted simultaneous searches at the premises of the office-cum godown of the Appellant and residential premises of Shri Ansar Khan, Proprietor of the Appellant firm. During the search, the officers recovered certain documents which appeared to be incriminating in nature and also recovered a Lenovo laptop under Mahazar dated 18.12.2013. 3. On preliminary scrutiny of the seized documents, the officers of DRI found that the value of the goods imported from M/s Hock Keng Heng Plaster Industrial SDN BHD, Malaysia had been mis-declared. Hence the imported goods valued at Rs. 6.79 Lakhs available at the premises of the Appellant were seized by the officers of DRI as they had reason to believe that the said goods were liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of value at the time of import. 4. Upon completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2023 was issued to the Appellant and same was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group 3&4), Chennai-II who passed the Order-in-Original No. 47654/2016 dated 10.06.2016 wherein unit value declared by the Appellant for the impugned imported goods was rejected and the actual unit value was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to the two invoices, viz. 5510 dated 20.09.2013 and 5462/17.06.2013 recovered by DRI, she submitted that as per these invoices, it was observed that the price for Gypsum moulding powder supplied by Hock Keng was higher than the one declared in BE No. 3477858/10/07.2013 and BE No. 2630430/05.07.2013 and therefore the DRI entertained suspicion that all the imports effected by the Appellant during the period from May 2012 to November 2013 should have been undervalued. She placed reliance on the case of Kuber Impex Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V reported in (2023) 4 Centax 266 (Tri-Bom) to submit that the two invoices which were printed from the laptop seized from the Appellant cannot be relied upon without the certificate under section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. The Learned Advocate also relied upon the case of Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2025 (9) TMI 76 - Supreme Court] to submit that in view of the fact that while giving reply to the show cause notice, the proprietor of the Appellant has retracted his statement, the soft copies of invoices downloaded from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... local sale value by the appellant can be of no help to the case of the appellant as the item sold in the local sale invoice cannot be correlated with import and it is not necessary that all items are sold in local market at profit. It is always possible that loss is suffered on sale of certain non-moving items". In this regard, she submitted that the Appellant deals with imported goods alone and is not dealing in non-moving items. She argued that the import was made to earn profit and not to lose money and that the price at which the Appellant sold the imported goods in India is a definite proof that the goods could not have been purchased at a higher price as claimed by DRI. She referred to the case of Bayer India Limited where transaction value was fixed by taking into account the resale price of the goods in India and even though there was contemporaneous import at higher price, the Tribunal held that transaction value was to be adopted and the same was also approved by the Supreme Court vide 2015 (322) ELT 17 (SC). 6.9 Further, the Ld. Advocate averred that the goods held in stock were seized on the suspicion that all the past imports were undervalued simply because in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant in his voluntary statement admitted the documents which were recovered from his own laptop, the same are admissible as evidence. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records and case laws relied upon. 9. The issues for consideration in this appeal are: - i. Whether rejection of the declared value on the basis of the statement of the Appellant recorded in English when the Appellant claims to have studied only upto 3rd Standard and that too in Government Urdu School is correct or not. ii. Whether rejection of the declared value of the impugned goods on the basis of soft copies of two invoices downloaded from the laptop found at the premises of the Appellant, which do not contain signature of the Appellant, and which are dated later than the date of import is correct or not. iii. Whether rejection of the declared value of the impugned goods on the basis of contemporaneous imports of identical goods supplied from the same supplier at higher unit prices when the Appellant submitted his local sale invoices as evidences in support of the value declared in the bills of entry is correct or not. iv. Whether re-determination of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ESTAT New Delhi], Shivam marketing and Gaurav Kushwaha Partner Versus Common Adjudicating Authority, Indore [2025 (6) TMI 1898 - CESTAT New Delhi-LB] and Shri T.N. Malhotra and M/s. S.R. Bristle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2024 (6) TMI 202- CESTAT New Delhi]. 11.2 Relevant paras 6.14 to 6.16 of M/s. AG Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2024 (9) TMI 1257 - CESTAT New Delhi] read as under: - "6.14 Despite these admitted facts, we find no proof from appellant to falsify invoices retrieved showing item details, deposits adjusted and also the actual cartons loaded compared with cartons shown in BL and to prove that there invoices have no relation to the invoices filed by the appellant-importer with Bills of Entry. It has already been observed as admitted fact that details of both set of invoices (retrieved and those filed with Bills of Entry) have absolute similarity vis-à-vis all details of the impugned imported goods except the values have been reduced and goods are declared as unbranded. The documents of comparison based whereupon the demand has been raised and confirmed as retrieved from proprietor of appellant'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Gaurav Kushwaha Partner Versus Common Adjudicating Authority, Indore [2025 (6) TMI 1898 - CESTAT New Delhi-LB] read as under: - "5. While the officers of Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] were investigating an earlier import made by the appellant under Bill of Entry No. 515 dated 12.02.2015, they asked Gaurav Kushwaha to open his email account. Gaurav Kushwaha then opened his e-mail account and voluntarily downloaded one Commercial Invoice No. GIBHL0042 dated 28.01.2015 and a Packing List pertaining to Container No. OOLU2897353. This Invoice was in respect of the goods that were imported by the appellant for which a Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 was presented by the appellant to the customs authorities. Statement of Gaurav Kushwaha was recorded on 06.02.2015 by the officers of DRI. However, Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 had not been filed by the appellant at the time of recording of the statement of Gaurav Kushwaha. 6. When the DRI officers again visited ICD Kheda on 11.03.2015 for examination and valuation of the goods contained in Container No. OOLU2897353, they noticed that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry No. 549 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the special leave petition was dismissed as reported in M/s.Laxmi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2020(372) ELT A 33 (SC)]. Rejecting the contention of the party that the computer printouts taken out from the computer cannot be considered as evidence unless certificate as required under subsection (2) of section 138 C of the Act is issued, the High Court of Gujarat observed as under:- "99. We do not find any merit in the above submission of Mr. Trivedi. The truth or the relevance of the documents has been admitted in no uncertain terms by the respondents in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act 1962. In such circumstances, it is too much for the respondents to say that the electronic evidence could not have been taken into consideration. In fact, the electronic evidence on record fortifies what has been stated by the respondents in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act. 100. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to one order passed by the CESTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, in the case of Laxmi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), New Delhi, reported in 2018 (361) E.L.T. 1054 (Tri.-Del.). We quote the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoice copies downloaded are not matching with the imports effected as one of the invoices was dated much later to the import (Para 11.2 supra). 11.5 The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has relied upon the case of Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2025 (9) TMI 76 - Supreme Court] to submit that the soft copies of invoices downloaded from the laptop of the Appellant are not admissible as evidences as the proprietor of the Appellant has retracted his statement while giving reply to the show cause notice. Paras 43 to 45 of Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others (supra) read as under: "43. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, we are of the view and, more particularly, considering the Record of Proceedings duly signed by the respondents, including the various statements of the respondents recorded under Section 108 of the Act, 1962, that there was due compliance of Section 138C(4) of the Act, 1962. When we say due compliance, the same should not mean that a particular certificate stricto senso i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces vs. market prices. This is amply clear from a plain reading of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as under:- Rule 12. Rejection of declared value . - (1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving 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). Explanation.- (1) For the removal of doubts, it is her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es by holding that the item sold in the local sale invoice cannot be correlated with import. Further, Revenue has not rebutted Appellant's argument that the local sale price proves that the declared value of the imported goods is correct. Thus, there was no evidence as to undervaluation of the imported goods. 16. Further, LAA has contradicted himself by holding on the one hand that the local sale invoice cannot be correlated with import while simultaneously assuming on the other hand that it is not always possible that all items are sold in local market on profit, and that it is possible that loss is suffered on sale of certain non-moving items. Moreover, Appellant's claim that he deals with imported goods alone and is not dealing in non-moving items, and that the import was made to earn profit and not to loose money has not been rebutted or disproved by the department. 17. For all the above reasons, the declared value of impugned imported goods cannot be rejected merely on the basis of higher contemporaneous import prices of identical or similar goods without considering the factors like quantity ordered, nature of the goods, whether imported under a contract, etc., i.e., va....