9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this concern including imports on the strength of the Power of Attorney given to him until he died on 13-11-2000. 3. On September, 2000, the applicant imported a consignment of Pile Fabrics of Man-made Fibre (4 Way) from M/s. Al Manohar Trading Co. LLC, UAE and filed a Bill of Entry bearing No. 419172, dated 15-9-2000 along with the necessary import documents, such as Import Invoice, Packing List etc. 4. The total quantity of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was 43989 Mtrs. valued at US $ 1.70 per Mtr. The gross weight and the net weight declared were 9760 Kgs. and 9461 Kgs. respectively. The goods were duly assessed after enhancing the value of US $ 2 per Mtr. 5. Subsequently, on the basis of an information that the weight of the goods had been misdeclared, the DRI examined the goods on 22-9-2000 and thereafter reexamined the same on 28-9-2000 and 13-10-2000. On re-examination, the gross weight and the net weight were found to be 16890 Kgs. and 16086.62 Kgs. respectively. 6. The goods in question, namely, Pile Fabrics are classifiable under sub-heading 6001.92 of the Customs Tariff carrying duty at the rate of 25% ad valorem or Rs. 100/- per kg., whichever is high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptance of Customs documents; that he totally agrees with the examination of the consignments imported vide the B/Es as done by the DRI officers; that he agrees that the weight has been misdeclared by him in both these B/Es; that he promises to immediately pay whatever differential duty is arising due to this mis-declaration as he is responsible for the liabilities of both these companies. On 26-9-2000 Shri Naresh Chatrabhuj Kothari also submitted the copies of the power of attorney dt. 13-7-99 and 4-8-99 of M/s. Jai Mata Di Impex and M/s. Concorde Impex respectively. Both of these powers of attorney were given on stamp papers of Rs. 100/- each. On both of them it was stated that Shri Naresh Chatrabhuj Kothari is looking after and conducting the import business of the companies viz. M/s. Jai Mata Di Impex and M/s. Concorde Impex, and that he is authorised by the proprietors of the said companies to attend on his behalf to any office and to sign on their behalf. 8. Thereafter the substantive allegations against the Applicant are as follows : Shri Naresh Chatrabhuj Kothari in connivance with Shri Piyush N. Kothari and Shri Darshan S. Keloo had wilfully misdeclared the weight o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. Consultant submitted there are two applications, one for M/s. Jai Mata Di Impex and the other for M/s. Concord Impex. The issues in both the cases are same. The allegation of the Show Cause Notice is also common. Therefore, ld. Consultant sought permission of the Hon ble Commission to proceed with the case of M/s. Jai Mata Di Impex. The same submission may be taken for granted in respect of M/s. Concord Impex. 12. To begin with the ld. Consultant submitted a statistical information about the liability of the Applicants according to (1) Applicant (2) show cause notice of the DRI and (3) report of the Commissioner (Investigation). 13. It could be seen from the information that the Applicant has initially paid Rs 17,56,124.84 and subsequently paid a balance of Rs. 7,68,904/- after the admission of hearing. 14. In the said statistical information, the ld. Consultant submitted that there was no difference in the quantity i.e. 43,989 metres, declared by the Applicant as well as the Revenue. However, the ld. Consultant admitted that the Applicant has misdeclared the net-weight of the goods under dispute for the benefit of the Applicant to evade payment of duty. 15. Be tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Inv.) has taken a view that since the weight of the goods detected by the DRI is 16,086.62 kgs instead of 9461 kgs as declared by the Applicant and the GLM being 230 GSM being 146, the length of the fabric could be 74,794.87 mtrs. and therefore the revised duty liability of the Applicant would be Rs. 31,42,028.83 , thus an additional duty of Rs. 6,17,000.37 is still required to be paid by the Applicant. 24. In course of the hearing, the learned Consultant of the Applicant showed samples of two different cloths of 3 metre each one of which weighed 942 gms and the other 990 gms and then he argued that the working out of the metreage on the basis of weight found is not logically correct. This argument of the learned Consultant appears to be correct. The Revenue in course of the hearing also has reiterated that the amount of duty calculated by them and as admitted by the Applicant is correct and thereby they have not agreed with the findings of the Commissioner (Investigation) as well. 25. It may be mentioned that samples of the fabric had neither been drawn nor chemically tested. According to Revenue, there was mis-declaration of weight and there is no misdeclar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
