2011 (4) TMI 552 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Differential duty - During the course of investigation, it was noticed by the officers that the respondent has cleared 10 consignments under various Bills of Entry from 19/8/1998 to 2/12/1999 imported through Hyderabad - The show-cause notice proceeded on the basis that the imported goods were of the prime quality but were mis-declared as rejects relying upon chiefly on the statements of buyers including that of importer and on the basis of investigation in the past cases of the importer at Hyderabad elsewhere - Held that the value if declared is sought to be rejected and Revenue should establish details of contemporaneous imports of such or similar goods that the price declared is not correct transaction value and value has been determined under CVR - there is no evidence that the said declaration of description was incorrect or mis-declared as there is no chemical examiner s report of the drawn sample - Decided in favour of the assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and re-assessment of imported goods.
2. Evidence and statements of buyers.
3. Rejection of transaction values.
4. Re-determination of values based on contemporaneous imports.
5. Cross-examination of witnesses.
6. Re-opening of assessments of past imports.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Re-assessment of Imported Goods:
The Revenue issued a show-cause notice proposing confiscation and demanding differential duty for goods imported by the respondent, alleging that the goods were mis-declared as seconds or rejects while they were of prime quality. The adjudicating authority, however, found no substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims and dropped the proceedings.

2. Evidence and Statements of Buyers:
The Revenue's case heavily relied on statements from buyers, particularly a deposition by Shri Dhyaneshwar Yadav of M/s. S.B. Marketing, Pune, who indicated discrepancies in the invoices. However, the adjudicating authority found that these statements did not conclusively prove that the goods were of prime quality. The buyers' statements were inconsistent and lacked a categorical assertion regarding the quality of the goods.

3. Rejection of Transaction Values:
The adjudicating authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to reject the transaction values declared by the respondent. The statements of the importer and buyers did not relate directly to the imports in question, and no samples were drawn to verify the quality of the goods. The authority emphasized that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace concrete proof.

4. Re-determination of Values Based on Contemporaneous Imports:
The adjudicating authority found that the re-determination of values based on contemporaneous imports was not justified due to the lack of evidence supporting the rejection of the transaction values. The authority noted that the goods were declared as rejects and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

5. Cross-examination of Witnesses:
The respondent sought cross-examination of the witnesses who had deposed against them. The adjudicating authority considered the cross-examination and found that the statements did not provide a clear assertion that the goods were of prime quality. The authority also noted inconsistencies in the statements of the buyers.

6. Re-opening of Assessments of Past Imports:
The issue involved the re-opening of assessments for 10 Bills of Entry cleared between 1998 and 1999. The adjudicating authority found that the past imports could not be generalized based on the evidence from live consignments. The authority referred to a previous decision where it was held that the yardstick applied to live consignments could not be mechanically extended to past imports. The authority found no substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims of mis-declaration and value manipulation for the past imports.

Conclusion:
The adjudicating authority, after considering the evidence and cross-examinations, concluded that there was no substantial proof to support the Revenue's claims. The statements of the buyers and the importer did not provide conclusive evidence of the goods being of prime quality. The authority also noted the lack of contemporaneous import data and the absence of drawn samples to verify the quality of the goods. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent was also dismissed.

← Previous Next →