9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us. 2. Heard ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Kumaraswami for the appellants and ld. JDR Shri Sankaravadivelu for the department. 3. Briefly the issue involves loading of invoice value contained in Invoice No. 481/90 submitted along with Bill of Entry No. 1037, dated 23-5-1990 for import of electronic watch modules for gents and ladies. The re-valuation of the consignment after a lapse of considerable period during which time the consignment was provisionally assessed to duty and released. This is sought to be done on the basis of the following evidence led in the show cause notice :- (a) A document read as Annexure-C (or Annexure-III) to the show cause notice which was found by the Customs officials during search of the premises of one Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of some 3rd party and a statement recorded thereon, probably and possibly under duress. Even the statement of the said Kanjani does not specifically show that whatever is contained in that piece of paper (Annexure-C) to the show cause notice relates to the consignment in question as all that Shri Kanjani deposed is that the said Shri Bharath of Hongkong told him that a number of consignments imported in Hyderabad in the recent times were of lower values as specified in the statement. Ld. Consultant therefore submitted that there is no clear link between this evidence and the consignment. He further submitted that if the department chooses to challenge the transaction value declared, then as per Section 14, the onus of burden of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides as well as the records of the case. We find that under Section 14, the valuation to be adopted (where import duty is on the basis of ad valorem ) is in accordance with the transaction value as contained in Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The said rule clearly lays down that the transaction value shall normally be adopted unless it is found to be fraudulent and not entered into in the normal course of business. We find that the only evidence which is led by the department in the order impugned is a piece of paper which was recovered not from the appellant s premises, but from the premises of one his associates who has been claimed by the appellants to be more of an adviser and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jani, it has been clearly stated that there have been contemporaneous imports. Therefore, the department cannot say that there were no contemporaneous imports during this period. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that when a transaction value is to be discarded, it has to be proved to the extent of establishing a preponderence of probability that the declared value is bogus. In view of the weaknesses in the evidence analysed above, we are of the conclusion that such a preponderence of probability has not been achieved in this respect in this case. We therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the importer and find that the order impugned challenging the said transaction value is liable to be set aside in its entirety. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
