9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Valuation Rules, is incorrect, as the wholesale prices of the goods quoted by M/s. Orma Lights are sought to be adopted for determining the assessable value in this case, but as observed by the Commissioner in the finding portion of the impugned order, Sh. Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Orma Lights has disowned his signature on the quotation and on verification by forensic expert, Lucknow, the signatures of Sh. Manoj Gupta on the quotations were not found to be his genuine signatures. There is absolutely no justification for rejecting the declared transaction value and as such neither there is any misdeclaration of value nor there is any justification of confiscation of the goods on this account and the duty demand on this basis, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on this basis, is liable to be set aside. As regards the allegation of misdeclaration of description, when except for some un-declared items, other goods are broadly as per declared description, this allegation does not sustain. However, only the items which were not declared at all in the bill of entry, would be liable to confiscation under Section 111(l) - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gupta who stated that he had imported these goods for the first time from China and that he is agreeable to determining the value of the goods on the basis of wholesale price of like goods or similar goods imported into India by the wholesale dealers in Firozabad (U.P.). He also gave his estimate regarding the trade tax, miscellaneous expenditure and his net profit margin. With regard to undeclared items TV Set and CFLs, Sh. Prashant Gupta accepted that the same had not been declared. 1.3 In view of the above investigation, the investigating officers were of the view that in respect of the goods covered under Bills of Entry No. 13/06 dated 6-2-2006; 16/06 dated 6-2-2006 and 19/06 dated 16-2-2006, as against the declared value of Rs. 3,24,22/-, 3,25,485/-, 3,21,209/- respectively, the value should be increased to Rs. 7,65,995/-, 7,66,669/-and Rs. 8,07,326/- respectively and accordingly duty amount to Rs. 4,82,106/- has been short paid. 1.4 Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the Appellants for - (a) rejecting the declared transaction value in respect of these three Bills of Entry and enhancing the same to Rs. 7,65,995/-, 7,66,669/- and Rs. 8,07,326/- and recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the wholesale price of imported goods mentioned in letter furnished by M/s. Orma Lights, that Sh. Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Orma Lights has disowned that Letter, that as such there is no misdeclaration of value or description warranting confiscation of the goods u/s 111(m), that in respect of CFL lights, there were no requirements to declare the MRP and hence the goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order confirming the duty demands, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants is not sustainable. 5. Sh. Nagesh Pathak, ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that the value of the goods has been grossly under-declared, as the same is less than even the raw-material prices, that since contemporaneous import price of like goods or similar goods into India were not available, Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules,1988 has been correctly invoked, that certain items found in the consignment had not been declared, and that in respect of CFL lights, the appellant were required to declar MRP at which the goods were to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in the country of manufacture or the price in India. No contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at higher price have been cited. Just because in respect of two imports of like goods made by the appellant at JNPT, Nava Sheva, the customs authorities there increased the declared value without passing any reasoned and detailed order, the value of the goods in respect of these consignments can not be rejected. Even the basis of determining the value of the goods under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, is incorrect, as the wholesale prices of the goods quoted by M/s. Orma Lights are sought to be adopted for determining the assessable value in this case, but as observed by the Commissioner in the finding portion of the impugned order, Sh. Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Orma Lights has disowned his signature on the quotation and on verification by forensic expert, Lucknow, the signatures of Sh. Manoj Gupta on the quotations were not found to be his genuine signatures. When the price quotation are proved to be forged and fabricated, we fail to understand as to how the prices mentioned in such forged quotation have been accepted by the Commissioner. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
