2026 (3) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt M/s. Tholath Stores had imported certain consumer goods in commercial quantiles from China and the department alleged that the goods were highly undervalued by submitting fabricated invoices. The Revenue on investigation issued show-cause notice alleging undervaluation and to redetermine the assessable value. The Original Authority based on the statements and on recovery of certain invoices, redetermined the assessable value and demanded differential duty, also confiscated the goods covered under 2 bills of entry and imposed equivalent amount of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 in addition to Rs.5,00,000/- penalty on the proprietor of the appellant under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the documents recorded recovered from the premises and none of these were relied upon for redetermining the value and totally a different value has been taken into account without any justification. It is also submitted that the documents recovered from the appellant's premises had no indication to show that it was the invoice meant for the goods imported by them or from their suppliers and therefore, reliance placed on such documents cannot be justified. Relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Bussa Overseas Properties Ltd.: 2007(216) ELT 659 (SC). It is also submitted that in the second consignment of March 2016, the appellant had imported 623 cartoons but the purported original i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." i.e. RMB 194548.30 (FOB) & RMB 284258.77 (FOB) to be taken as actual invoice values of the two consignments imported 3181172 dated 06.11.2015 & 4863984 dated 11.04.2016 and accordingly their values needs to be redetermined at USD 31978 (CIF) as & 44438 (CIF) as being the actual transaction value, under the provisions of Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962." 5.1 From the above observation of the original authority, we do not find any justification as to how these values were arrived at and moreover, we find that the invoices consisted of large number of consumer goods in large quantities and there is no comparison drawn between the commercial invoices placed at the tim....