9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in or model nos. except in case of Bill of Entry No. 99106 where Model No. SB 320 was found. 1.3 Since no mention of Country of Origin was seen and it was held to be contrary to declaration of Country of Origin China made on the Bill of Entry it appeared to the department as seen from identically worded para 3 to para 12 of the impugned order, except for the nature of the import number the BE, (as extracted from CDM 98/06/ below) proceedings of undervaluation were launched confiscation Paras 3 to 12 read as - (3) It, therefore, appeared that there was no mention of country of origin in respect of the said import consignment, which is contrary to the declaration made in the said bill of entry, which indicates the country of origin as China. (4) In view of above, it appeared that it cannot be said that the imported goods found without any indication of the country of origin are related to the bill of entry and the invoice, which indicate the country of origin. (5) Further, on a study of the value evidences available from Directorate of Valuation (DOV) data, it was found that there were instances of clearance of set top box (digital satellite receiver) at a much higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 16-5-05 Essel Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Kaon Media Ltd. 442-17 Jungwongu, Sungnam, city Kyunggido, Korea Digital Set Top Boxes Model KSF 100 MC 0 Brand Not Available US$ 48 (6) The country of origin mentioned in the subject bill of entry is China. From the table above, it is seen that the date of filing of bill of entry number 614822 at ICD Ahmedabad is 20-5-05 which is closest to the date of importation made by the subject importer and the country of origin is China for both these imports. The value evidence of US Dollar 22.5 in respect of ICD Ahmedabad also gets support from the value evidence in respect of import made through Hyderabad vide bill of entry number 108672 dated 12-4-05. Further, of all the value evidences mentioned above, the value of U.S. Dollar 22.5 is the lowest one. (7) In view of the availability of the higher value evidence and the facts that the subject imported goods did not bear any mark of country of origin which is contrary to the declaration made in the bill of entry that the country of origin of the goods is China, it appeared that the invoice value as declared by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bill of entry number 236990 dated 14-6-2005 should not be rejected in view of discussions made in the notice; (ii) The transaction value should not be determined under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 taking US Dollar 22.5 per piece as the correct value of the goods; (iii) The assessable value should not be taken as Rs. 71,00,080.58 instead of Rs. 23,66,693.52 as declared and the duty should not be paid by them accordingly; (iv) The goods under the subject bill of entry should not be held liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (v) The importer should not be held liable to penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 Commissioner, vide paras 15 to 19 (verbation same in both cases and extracted hereinbelow) found the undervaluation charge to be upheld, ordered the loading of value to USD 22.5 per pcs. confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 goods an option redemption imposed penalties under Section 112(a) on the importers. Hence these appeal. Paras 15 to 19 of the order as per CDM 98/06 read as :- (15) I have carefully gone through the records of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings, support the plea being made to call for setting aside the orders impugned. There is no independent application of mind exhibited. The order also does not address all issues raised by the importers before the Commissioner Orders are violative of Principle of Natural Justice are required to be set aside on that ground. (b) The appellants have requested the Commissioner to refer to certain Data on valuation, available at his Desk on the press of a button apply the minimum values observed therein for imports of subject goods at Kolkata. The Commissioner rejects such photocopy of NDB Data, obtained by the importers, only on the grounds of the same being photocopies not authenticated appeared to be printout. What prevented the Commissioner from going through the NDB data available on the computer at his Desk is not forthcoming. The appellants have pleaded that the DRI officers, who have issued the notices, have picked chosen valuation in a biased manner in the Chart prepared relied by them and have ignored the NDB data available on customs House, computer to which and they had no official access to it. This plea of the importer is to be upheld. Issue of valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
