9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the original authority on the ground that the invoice relied upon by the department to enhance the price, was not a signed invoice - The discrepancy was sought to be explained as a clerical mistake - As the only evidence relied upon for enhancing the value is this document and since there is no other corroboration or admission by the respondent regarding undervaluation, the discrepancies cannot be ignored - Therefore, do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is, therefore, rejected. - C/25/2007 and Cross Objection No. C/CO/35/2007 - C/138/2010(PB) - Dated:- 22-9-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.R. Meena, DR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were liable for confiscation and imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/-; he also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,19,573/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the importer. 3.4 On appeal by the importer, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority on the ground that the invoice relied upon by the department to enhance the price, was not a signed invoice. 4. Ld. SDR after producing the correspondence between First Secretary of India, Belgium, and the official in the German Embassy submits that the actual invoice relating to the import by the respondent has been procured through diplomatic channel and the invoice is duly authenticated by the Customs officials of exporting country viz. Germany. This evidence was disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is not a document signed by the exporter. The said invoice refers to advance payment of 8,000 Euro. No such advance payment has been made by them. He submits that as per the records, (which has also been supported by the certificate of a Chartered Accountant s certificate) payment made by them was only 10,000 Euros. The payment of differential duty was made under protest. He also submits that there is a major discrepancy in the report of German authorities as the enclosures refers to invoice No. 04/08/2002. The report of the First Secretary also refers to real invoice No. 04/08/2002 which is for 19,000 Euros. This being a vital discrepancy, the same cannot be treated as a clerical mistake as claimed by the Department. He also relies upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y will take up the matter with the foreign supplier. The department appears to have not recorded any further statement. Further, there is a glaring discrepancy in the documents relied upon by the department. While the invoice annexed to the report of the German authorities refers to 040/08/2002, dated 30-8-2002, the report by the German authorities and forwarding letter of the First Secretary, Indian Embassy of Belgium referred to Invoice No. 04/08/2002, dated 30th August, 2002. This discrepancy was sought to be explained as a clerical mistake. As the only evidence relied upon for enhancing the value is this document and since there is no other corroboration or admission by the respondent regarding undervaluation, the discrepancies cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
