9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Sujay Kantawala, Advocate argued the case on behalf of the applicant and the co-applicant. The facts of the case are substantially covered in the Interim Order No. 39/CUS/2004, dated 16-9-2004 through which the application was allowed to be proceeded with. Briefly stated the facts as stated in the Interim order are as under :- The ld. Advocate narrating the brief 2. facts of the case stated that acting on information officers of the Central Intelligence Unit, New Customs House, Mumbai kept watch on a consignment which had arrived in a container per vessel Inar Bintan from Singapore and was lying at Sewree Timber Pond (STP), Mumbai Docks. The said consignment had been imported by the applicant under the cover of Bill of Entry No. 259 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry the goods are still lying under Customs control. This was in spite of the fact that they had fully compiled with the Interim Order dated 16-9-2004. He submitted that the value of goods is constantly depreciating. 4.1As regards the duty amount involved in the case, the ld. Advocate submitted that there seems to be a fair amount of confusion. The amount originally demanded in the Show Cause Notice is Rs. 13,80,411/-. This amount will get revised to Rs. 11,91,483.41 as Revenue has stated that the CIF value would actually be 34.13% of the retail price after taking into account margin of the wholesale dealer and not 40.95% of retailer s sale price as indicated in the Show Cause Notice. 4.2The latest Market Enquiry Report indicates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already paid and indicated above. As regards the amount demanded in the Show Cause Notice as well as the revised amount taking into consideration the margin of the wholesale dealer, there is no justification for the same. No proper Market Enquiry was conducted by the Revenue and more importantly even after conducting some enquiry the same was not made part of the Show Cause Notice and hence cannot be relied upon by the Revenue. 4.5The basis for the Show Cause Notice it seems are some Kacha receipt/quotations which are meaningless and can with no stretch of imagination form the basis for arriving at the value by the Revenue especially when the applicant has furnished certain Bills of Entry for contemporaneous import based on which they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen from Para 4 supra. As indicated in the foregoing para the applicant claims settlement of the additional duty liability worked out by the Enquiry Officer of the Settlement Commission, which is based on the Market Enquiry and comes to Rs. 4,84,472/- without taking into consideration Rs. 49,161/- which has already been paid. Looking to the facts of the case this appears to be the most reasonable stand. The figure of Rs. 5,02,515/- arrived at by the Commissioner (Investigation) taking into consideration the highest price vis-a-vis the average price adopted by the Enquiry Officer is not reasonable. The amounts worked out by the Revenue are also unsustainable as they are not supported by any documentary evidence and their market enquiry was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
