9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGI Airport, New Delhi. By the said order a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed on the present appellants apart from confiscating plastic shoe lasts imported by them but allowing redemption on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice alleging mis-declaration of the actual value of the import and production of false invoice showing a much lower value. The Addl. Collector observed that the appellants had filed bill of entry declaring the FOB value at LIT 6,30,000/- whose assessable value worked out to Rs. 89,318/-. The appellants had claimed before the Addl. Collector that the declared value of bill of entry was the correct transaction value. On examination of relevant documents such as the Bank Invoice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as they were not visible in the original FAX received by them. The adjudicating authority also found that no satisfactory explanation had been given by Shri Kalsi regarding the variations of the signatures found between the invoice attached with the Bill of Entry and the invoice received from the Bank. The adjudicating authority also found that the certificate of insurance dated 10-10-1989 attached to the Bill of Entry showed a much higher value. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the Addl. Collector had wrongly rejected the appellant's submission that the value of imported goods had been revised to LIT 9,625,000 after negotiations. They claim that the FAX/Telex messages dated 1-11-1989 and 6-11-1989 and letter date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attached with the Bill of Entry at the time of its filing had been enclosed which has not been taken into account by the adjudication authority. Appellants also questioned the observation made in the impugned order to the effect that although the subsequent negotiated price could be relevant for the purpose of remittance of foreign exchange, the same cannot have any bearing on the assessable value as per provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Appellants contend that the subsequent negotiated price was equally relevant for purposes of Customs Act as in the case of remittances under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. They have also contended that the Tribunal judgement in the case of Mehta Impex reported in [1990 (45) E.L.T. 249] rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation and exportation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer had no interest in the business of each other and price was the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. The subsequent correspondence, which the appellants claimed had resulted in the reduction of the value of imported goods cannot be accepted since no satisfactory evidence of such negotiations had been shown. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. The appellants had not disputed that there was difference in price between the Proforma Invoice dated 28-9-1989 and the declared FOB value as per Bill of Entry dated 9-11-1989. We observe that the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
