TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceivers [DSR] and redetermined assessable value under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 [CVR] Differential customs duty of Rs.7,24,34,879/- was confirmed along with interest, the goods were held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the and penalties were imposed upon all the appellants. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant M/s. Jitin Electronics, a proprietary concern of Smt. Shail Singhal, imported Main CB Boards for Digital Satellite Receivers under four Bills of Entry during the period January 2005 to April 2005, aggregating to 18,000 pieces. The goods were declared as "Populated PCB for Receiver / Components of Digital Receiver" and classified under CTH 85229000. All the consignments were supplied by M/s. New Leaf International Ltd., Hong Kong, which was controlled by Sh. Ashish Chawla. Investigations revealed that M/s. Jitin Electronics had lent its lEC and firm name for the purpose of importation. The imports were arranged and controlled by Sh. Ashish Chawla alongwith his father Sh. Vinod Chawla, proprietor of M/s. Wings Electronics, who was the ultimate beneficiary of the goods. Investigations further revealed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 06.06.2025. Learned counsel also submitted that no goods were available for physical examination or comparison, and no representative samples were drawn, nor any laboratory or technical test report was obtained. In the absence of any scientific examination establishing that the imported goods were identical or comparable with the goods relied upon by the Department, the allegation of undervaluation remained unsupported by cogent evidence. Learned counsel also stated that under the Customs Valuation Rules, the declared transaction value can be rejected only upon the existence of valid and legally sustainable reasons. Mere suspicion, assumptions, market enquiries, or third-party quotations cannot, by themselves, constitute sufficient grounds for rejection of the transaction value. Learned counsel stated that prior to relying upon contemporaneous imports, the Department was required to establish that the goods are identical or similar in all material particulars, including quality, technical specifications, brand, country of origin, quantity, commercial level, and the time of import. In the absence of such evidence and compliance with the sequential valuation methodology prescrib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and the domestic beneficiary and had no freedom with respect to pricing, resale or disposal of the goods. The evidence on record established that the declared price was not the sole consideration for the sale, and restrictions existed on the sale of goods, and the proceeds of resale accrued to persons, other than the declared importer. Learned Authorised Representative contended that facts in the instant case attract clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, rendering the transaction value unacceptable. Further, Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the importer, through its Authorised Representative, had categorically disowned the transaction and had admitted to acting merely on a commission basis. 4.1 Learned Authorized Representative further contended that after rejection of the declared transaction value, the adjudicating authority had proceeded sequentially as per the Valuation Rules and redetermined the assessable value under Rule 6 by relying upon contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. The comparable imports relied upon were of Main PCB Boards for Satellite Receivers, of Chinese origin, falling under the same tarif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sh. Ashish Chawla of New Leaf Electronics. Based on the above factual matrix, the Tribunal decided as follows: "30. The other edifice of defence sought to be built is something constructed by borrowing different sentences from different decisions of courts written in the context of the facts of each case as explained with reference to major cases cited. Of course many more such decisions can be examined and shown how the decisions cannot build an edifice of defence in this case. For the sake of brevity it is not being attempted. 31. When the facts are seen in the above light we see no reason to hold the impugned order to be bad. So we uphold the order in respect of revision of value as per the impugned order and consequent duty liability. 32. However, we note that in respect of the penalties imposed on the three importers under Section 114A of the Customs Act, the adjudicating authority has not given the option to pay 25% of duty demanded along with interest within 30 days of receipt of the order for final settlement. So we give such option to be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. We make this order on the basis of following decisions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty at this stage. 6.4 Further the submission that the assessments could not be reopened after clearance was also directly answered by the decision in M/s. A.G. Incorporation (supra). Rejecting the identical argument, the Tribunal in the said decision categorically held that the acceptance of such a proposition would virtually grant immunity to importers indulging in undervaluation merely because the assessing officer had initially loaded the value. The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 28 remain fully maintainable whenever subsequent investigation uncovers suppression or undervaluation. We find that the present case stands on identical footing and therefore the extended period has been rightly invoked. 6.5 Learned counsel has also contended that the mandatory procedure under section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 was not followed. He has relied on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Deept. Swaroop Aggarwal (supra). In this context, we find that it is settled law that section 108 empowers a gazette officer of Customs to summon any person to provide evidence or produce documents. This aspect has been examined by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Commissioner of Customs Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k to abide by all commitments made by him to the Government. This explicit authorization and adoption of the statements of Shri R.P. Singhal clearly fastened the legal responsibility upon the proprietorship concern and its proprietor. Consequently, Smt. Shail Singhal, being the proprietor of M/s. Jitin Electronics and the importer of record, was legally responsible for the declarations made to Customs. Through her authorised representative, she admitted that the imports were made for third parties and that the declared value was not genuine. Hence, the penalty under Section 114A been correctly imposed on the appellant. 7.1 Shri R.P. Singhal, husband of the proprietor, in his detailed voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, categorically admitted: * M/s Jitin Electronics, IEC was lent out for the purpose of importing DSR components at the instance of Shri Ashish Chawla and Shri Vinod Chawla. * The declared value of the Main CB Boards was not the actual transaction value and was deliberately under-declared. * The extent of undervaluation ranged between US 6.5 to 12.5 per unit, leading to substantial evasion of customs du....