TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at HK $ 10,000 and the goods were assessed and cleared at that value. Subsequent investigation showed that the foreign supplier had declared a F.O.B. value of Rs. HK $ 36,000 for the same consignment under their export declaration filed before the Hong Kong Customs. In Appeal No. C/248/03-NB(A) M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons, Jaipur had imported a consignment of 53,000 pieces of watchcases with metal band (bracelet) in August, 1994. The value of this consignment was declared to Custom at CIF US $ 27,878 i.e. Rs. 8,79,551/-. Later investigation showed that, for the same goods, the foreign supplier had declared a value of HK $ 2,38,500 (Rs. 9,73,080/- as F.O.B. value). Based on the differences in the value declarations to the Indian Customs and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the present case clearly supported its case that the value declared by the importers were false. It is being pointed out that the supplies were from traders and the importers had failed to make available manufacturers' invoice to support the sale prices. The discrepancy between the prices in the export declarations and import invoices pointed only to under-declaration of value in the import invoices inasmuch as import of identical goods and the price quotation also showed that the value mentioned in the export declarations were the correct value for the transactions. The Revenue has also pointed out that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of East Punjab Traders was not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case, learned Counsel for the respondent importers submitted that in several proceedings [South India Television (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 243], [Rainbow Gold Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Hyderabad - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 309], [Uttam Mohanlal Jain v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 661] and Md. Abdul Halim v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 842] the Tribunal had held that case of undervaluation cannot be sustained based on the photocopies of export declarations obtained from abroad. 6. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The orders of lower authorities have accepted that the invoice prices r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g customs examination or thereafter. No evidence has been produced to show that there were large rejections of parts during the assembly of watches with these imported parts. Nor has the importer Shri Ishwar Dass Moolrajani given details as to what were the defects in the goods. Clearly this is a no ball thrown by Shri Moolrajani and it has worked as a googly on the adjudicating authority. 8. The obligation of an importer with regard to the declarations made about the nature, quantity and value of the imported goods is strict. Section 46(i) of the Customs Act states that an importer (for home consumption) of any goods shall make entry thereon and sub-section (4) of the same section stipulates that the importer, while presenting the bill ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of M/s. Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd., and Commissioner v. M/s. Multimetal Ltd. clearly apply. Same is the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 199 and Ram Khazana Electronic v. CC, Air Cargo, Jaipur - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 122. 10. The finding of the Commissioner on the question of limitation is grossly erroneous. This is clear from the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.). "Demand Show Cause Notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for demand of duty can be issued without reviewing under Section 130, the order of clearance passed under Section 47....