9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated to the present consignments. These declarations have been given by the supplier to the Governmental authorities at Hongkong as per the requirement of their Import and Export Regulations. Value of the goods declared by the exporter to his Government was found to be much higher compared to the prices declared to the Department in India on importation in the related bills of entry proposing to reject the invoice value for assessment purposes. Show Cause Notice was issued. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the transaction value will be the observed higher prices declared by the supplier to the Govt. abroad and also proposed to confiscate the goods for misdeclaration of the value and the consequential liability to penalty of the concerned importer. Based on these higher invoices obtained, the value of two other consignments which have been earlier provisionally cleared, was also sought to be similarly enhanced. The Show Cause Notice also proposed to invoke Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 for making such enhancement of the declared value. There was an excess consignment of one lakh pieces of Zebra Connectors also found, on examination of the consignment and the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Ashok Mehta, ld. Counsel for the appellants, referred to the two misc. applications for additional evidence and also to putforth their case that it is still not possible, to obtain the copies of the export declaration from their supplier. However, the ld. Counsel subsequently, submitted that he is not pressing these applications. 3. On hearing the ld. S.D.R., Shri B.K. Singh, the two misc. applications are, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. The ld. Counsel argued on the merits of the appeals and submitted that the entire case is based on the export declaration of the supplier at Hongkong. According to the appellants, this could not be the valid basis for determining the assessable value. These declarations were neither attested nor do they bear the seal of the Hongkong Customs or any other governmental authority there. The declarations are only photo copies and also not attested or authenticated. The Department has not disclosed as to how they procured these copies. Apart from these copies of export declaration, the ld. Counsel pointed out that there is no evidence for the Department to reject the invoice value as the transaction value for the goods under Rule 5 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof. The ld. S.D.R. also relied upon the provisions of Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding presumption as to the documents in certain cases which lays down that where any document has been received from any place outside India in the course of investigation of any offence, and such document is tendered as evidence, the Court shall presume unless the contrary is proved the genuineness of particulars contained in the document and admit document in evidence. The ld. D.R. argued that these provisions relate to prosecution in Court where the degree of evidence required is much stricter than in adjudication. When this is so in the adjudication proceedings, there will be no infirmity in the Collector relying upon such documents in evidence for adjudication purposes. Regarding the reliance placed upon by the appellants in the case of East Punjab Traders (supra), the ld. S.D.R. argued that the Tribunal had found that the documents relied upon by the Department in that case did not bear any signatures whatsoever and the Tribunal cannot presume that their originals should have been signed by an appropriate person. The ld. S.D.R. contended that such is not the case here where ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department, observed that the customs seal affixed on that does not, by itself or coupled with a serial number and in the absence of a signature of the officer concerned prove their authenticity or that they were, indeed, prepared and filed and otherwise acted upon. ( Para 37(f) of the Tribunal order). In the present case, there is no Customs seal at all nor any signature of the Customs official in the export declaration and the copies of the export declaration at Hongkong relied upon by the Department. Therefore, as observed by the Tribunal in the East Punjab Traders case (supra), it cannot be presumed that the export declaration was a document prepared and filed and otherwise acted upon. The Tribunal also observed in that case in the same paragraph of its order that it is no answer to say that the appellants could have produced the real export declarations, if the documents produced by the Deptt. were spurious. It is, further, observed that the appellants, during adjudication proceedings, had referred to certain other Bills of Entry 4876 dated 5-2-1993; 45794 dated 19-11-1992; and 43886 dated 6-11-1992 wherein prices were ranging from Rs. 1.30 to Rs. 1.45 per module which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
