2023 (12) TMI 383 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty of customs - import of Poppy Seeds from Turkey - declared price shown by the respondent is very less than the Poppy Seeds imported by the other importers - HELD THAT - It is found that on the said allegation and on the basis of investigation conducted by the DRI, several show cause notices were issued all over India and in the case of AJAY EXPORTS, UTTAM IMPEX, RAKESH KUMAR BHATIA, RAJU BHATIA, RAKESH KUMAR CO, RAJU BHATIA, ARUSHI EXPORTS, TRADEX INDIA CORP PVT LTD, VIBHA BHATIA, MOTILAL, ARUN KAPOOR, LAXMI TRADING CO, AMERICAN ALMONDS CORPORATION, RADHEY SHYAM RATANLAL, SUNDER LAL, AJAY GUPTA, RATAN LAL, SONIA GUPTA, UTTAM CHAND, SUNDER LAL VERSUS CC (IMPORT) , MUMBAI AND OTHERS 2016 (2) TMI 8 - CESTAT MUMBAI , this issue came up for consideration and this Tribunal after considering all the facts placed before it, observed that if the value of contemporaneous imports were accepted and the transaction value in those case are not doubted by the revenue in the assessment orders, it is not understandable why the said values could not have been used for the purposes of comparing the same with the value of the consignments in question in these appeals. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether insurance documents, export declarations, and other sources can be relied upon for enhancing transaction value.
2. Whether penalties need to be imposed on the appellants.

Issue 1:

The judgment examined the reliance on various sources to enhance transaction value. It was observed that copies of foreign documents must be tested and signed by the relevant authorities to be admissible as evidence. The Tribunal held that relying on unauthenticated and unsigned documents is not permissible, as established by settled law. Additionally, it was noted that values declared for insurance purposes by exporters cannot be the basis for redetermination of transaction value. The judgment cited previous cases to support the position that information from sources like Comtrade and public ledgers cannot be used to doubt or reject transaction value. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to consider contemporaneous imports and did not follow the proper rules for valuation, leading to an incorrect conclusion of undervaluation.

Issue 2:

Regarding the imposition of penalties on the appellants, the judgment highlighted a case where differential duty liability was based on a confessional statement, which was later retracted by the individual. The Tribunal emphasized that the retracted statement had no evidentiary value, especially when other evidence was lacking. It was noted that the authorities had recorded another statement from the individual, where he denied the charge of undervaluation. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and set them aside. As a result, the question of imposing penalties on the appellants did not arise.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of relying on various sources for enhancing transaction value and the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized the importance of following established legal principles and ensuring that evidence is admissible and properly considered in such cases.