9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company should have been more diligent to check and counter¬check the stock position in his factory premises - Due to the non-effective supervision there was a shortage which were imported under concessional rate of duty – decided partly in favor of assesse. Valuation - Transaction value, rejection on suspicion that same underdeclared - Misdeclaration of goods – following the judgement of Crystal Dot Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC&CE, Hyderabad-II [2010 (7) TMI 708 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Held that:- if value declared is rejected, Revenue should establish with details of contemporaneous imports of such or similar goods, that the price declared is not correct transaction value and the value has to be determined under CVR - Commissioner did not reject the transaction value for valid reasons in the absence of contemporaneous imports of comparable CTP machines at higher prices. - the revision of price, demand of differential duty and interest, confiscation of the impugned machine on the ground that the importer had mis-declared its value and consequent penalties were not sustainable – Decided against revenue. - C/156 & 167/2006 and C/233/2007 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for confiscation of the said goods and also for demand of differential duty on the balance amount of CCL which were imported by Bill of Entry No. 473 and for the confiscation of the said goods. The appellant company contested the show-cause notice on merits and put forth various defences before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority, after considering the submissions made, came to the conclusion that the charge of mis-declaration of the imported goods as rejects was not proved and coming to such conclusion dropped the proceedings for demand of the differential duty on the charge of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority, however, confirmed the demand of duty on the quantity of CCL found short during the visit of the premises of the appellant-company and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the partner of the company under provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) but did not confiscate the goods found short as they were not physically available. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee and the Managing Partner are before us in appeal. Revenue is also aggrieved by the said order as the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C grade was the same, which would indicate that nobody will supply A grade goods at the price of C grade and vis-a-vis. It is his submission that on these evidences, Commissioner ought to have been ascertained and discussed in his order the pricing pattern offered by RRE to the customers on the consignment in dispute. It is his submission that only after undertaking this exercise, the adjudicating authority should have drawn some inference as to whether the impugned goods are of sub-standard quality or otherwise. It is his submission that in view of this, the adjudicating authority s order of dropping the proceedings of mis-declaration of goods seems to be inappropriate speaking order and is fraught with defects of presumption. In view of this, he seeks remand of the matter. 5. Ld. Counsel on the other hand would submit that the adjudicating authority s order is quite clear. It is his submission that the test results of CCL samples sent by the customs authorities to M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. needs to be gone into. He would draw our attention to the test report of samples. It is his submission that M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. had clearly indicated in the said report that on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the following :- 13. I have examined each of the above material evidences to study its sustainability vis-a-vis the provisions of Law and my conclusions are discussed below :- 13.1. Prima facie, the statements of the various buyers, obviously pertains to the consignments purchased by them earlier and in no way can be related to the consignment, imported vide Bill of Entry No. 473, now under dispute. No imputation can be made against the importer for the disputed consignment based on such statements. The same logic applies to the reliance made, on the past mis-declarations made by the Importer before Mumbai customs during 1998. The pas mis-conduct, if any of the importer cannot be a ground for the allegations in the present consignment. Any charges in the present notice can be sustained only based on the evidence gathered during the course of the present case. 13.2. I have gone through the analysis report of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. The report is ambiguous in the sense, on one hand it certifies that the goods conform to the NEMA standards on the basis of tested properties and on the other hand it goes on to certify that by visual appearance the goods are to be regarded as sub-st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily relied on this document (so-called invoice ) which indicates the name of the goods as Glass Epoxy Copper Clad Laminates and the value of the goods as USD 71, 125. Ld. SDR has only reiterated the observations of the Commissioner in relation to this document. But we have found substance in the submissions of the Counsel. This document, with all the said infirmities, can hardly be accepted as a manufacturer s or trader s invoice. The Revenue has no case that it is international practice to issue a commercial invoice without naming the buyer/consignee. The whole case of the Revenue in respect of the goods covered by Bill of Entry dated 12-5-2000 is based on this document. On the basis of this document, they alleged that, in the said Bill of Entry, the importer misdeclared the description and value of the goods. 13. 14. In the result, in so far as the past imports are concerned, the appeal of the importer has to be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the lower authority in so far as its findings and conclusions in relation to the past imports are concerned. 11. We find that the decision of this Bench in the case of Crystal Dot Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
