TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the said period, the appellant imported two consignments of the subject goods from M/s. EB McSun Pte. Ltd., Singapore, an overseas supplier stated to be engaged in the supply of heavy earth-moving machinery. The consignments were imported against the prescribed shipping documents, including commercial invoices, and Bills of Entry filed before the Customs authorities. 3. The subject consignments were duly presented for assessment and examination and were thereafter cleared by the Customs authorities without objection being raised with regard to the declarations made by the appellant or the valuation thereof. It is pertinent to note that the imports pertained to a period prior to the introduction of the self-assessment regime by the Finance Act, 2011, and the declared values and accompanying import documents were assessed and accepted by the concerned Customs officers at the relevant time. 4. The matter was, however, subsequently reopened on the basis of an investigation undertaken by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which commenced approximately three to four years after the subject imports, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eged, on the basis of the aforesaid statements and documents, that the subject consignments were covered by two sets of invoices, one set reflecting the lower value declared before Customs and another allegedly reflecting the actual higher value of the goods, with the difference having been paid to the overseas supplier. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.09.2011 was issued to the appellant and the other persons concerned, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had imported the subject goods during the said period by resorting to undervaluation with intent to evade payment of Customs duty. The declared assessable value of Rs.14,71,884/- was proposed to be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the differential Customs duty amounting to Rs.20,68,060/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, along with applicable interest under Sections 28(1) and 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods were further proposed to be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act and penalties were proposed under Sections 112(a), 114A and 114AA of the Act. 6.1. The appellant contested the allegations and subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the case of Shri Ranaji Ganguly (supra), this Tribunal has also allowed the appeals preferred by Shri Abhijit Ray Burman in two separate proceedings, one of which was arising from the very same Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2023 pertaining to the present appeal. It is submitted that, in the said proceedings, the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 77884-77885 of 2025 dated 09.12.2025 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75355 of 2024 & anr. [2025 (12) TMI 833 - CESTAT, Kolkata], following the decision rendered in the case of Shri Ranaji Ganguly (supra), had held the allegations against Shri Abhijit Ray Burman to be unsustainable and consequently allowed the said appeals. According to the Ld. Counsel, the said findings are of considerable relevance to the present appeal, since the allegations against the appellant also emanate from the same investigation and the same alleged undervaluation racket. 7.2. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. Counsel has also advanced various submissions on the merits of the case and relied upon a number of judicial precedents in support thereof. He accordingly prays that the impugned order, to the extent it rejects the declared assessable value and rede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the alleged undervaluation. Further, the statements themselves disclose inconsistencies which have not been satisfactorily explained by the Revenue. 11. We find that the very same issue in respect of proceedings arising from the very same investigation and substantially the same evidentiary material has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Ranaji Ganguly, wherein the Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 2010. Upon consideration of the self-same facts and circumstances and the evidence relied upon by the Revenue, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 75319 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 78278 of 2018 [2025 (2) TMI 1286 - CESTAT, Kolkata] held that the allegation of undervaluation could not be legally sustained, observing as under: - "5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that the appellant imported 4 consignments of spares for heavy earth moving equipment from the overseas supplier viz. EB McSun Pte Ltd., Singapore. The said goods were imported against proper shipping documents, including commercial invoices, and bills of entry drawn in terms of the Act. The subject consignments were importe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivil appeals is whether the Department was right in adding GBP1.56 lakhs to the declared value of GBP6.26 lakhs approximately. In the present case, the Department has alleged under-valuation by the importer (assessee). The product imported is vatted malted spirit used in manufacture of scotch whisky. The Department alleged that the CIF declared value was not GBP6.26 lakhs but it was around GBP7.82 lakhs on the basis that the said sum of GBP1.56 lakhs constituted the balance amount subsequently paid partly in cash and cheque by the assessee to the foreign buyer M/s. Morrison Bowmore Distilleries, Glasgow, U.K. 2. We have carefully examined each and every document placed on record and we are in agreement with the factual finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that there is no evidence of under-valuation in the present case particularly when the Department is relying upon unsigned xerox copies of the documents in support of its case. Even the contents of each of these documents do not support the case of the Department. 3. Taking an overall view of the matter, we find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department which are, accordingly, dismissed with no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue for confirmation of differential duty on the appellant. In the present case, the main evidence on which, Revenue has sought to establish the case of undervaluation and misdeclaration of the imported goods is in the form of the computer printouts taken out from the laptops and other electronic devices in respect of which the requirement of Section 138C(2) ibid has not been satisfied. On this ground, the impugned order suffers from uncurable error and hence, is liable to be set aside. 6.4. In the impugned order, it is alleged that in his statements, Mr. Lim Eng Bee admitted that the company has exported the said goods to the appellant against parallel commercial invoices upon undervaluing the same and collecting the differential undeclared transaction value through a combination of banking and non-banking channels. However, we observe that there is no corroborative evidence disclosed in the impugned order in respect of any extra/additional payment made by the appellant to the foreign supplier with respect to the subject imported goods. There are no details, including bank details or the exact amount sent by the appellant or as to how and in what manner such paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we hold that the demand of differential Customs duty is not sustainable in the present case. 7.1. Since the demand of Customs duty is held to be unsustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties does not arise. 8. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law." 12. We further take note of the subsequent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Abhijit Ray Burman wherein two appeals filed by the said person, one of which arose from the very same Order-in-Original as involved in the present proceedings, were allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 77884-77885 of 2025 dated 09.12.2025 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75355 of 2024 & anr. [2025 (12) TMI 833 - CESTAT, Kolkata],. In the said proceedings also, following the ratio laid down in the case of Shri Ranaji Ganguly (supra), the Tribunal found the allegations against Shri Abhijit Ray Burman (also the noticee no. 3 herein) to be unsustainable and allowed the appeals. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: - "7.1. We find that the charge against the present appella....