9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions are admissible as evidence A perusal of the show cause notice dated 06.5.1998 reveals that appellants have not produced any evidence to substantiate that the invoice value declared by them are correct by way of showing value of contemporaneous imports etc. On the other hand, we find that the Department has brought in evidences such as the export declarations along with the declarations certifying its accuracy, obtained through official channels under the signature and letter head of Customs department, Hong Kong who has also certified that they have no objection of its use as evidence in judicial proceeding in India. Therefore, we find that the Revenue has brought in sufficient evidences to establish huge under valuation. The appellants have failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate that the value declared by them is correct, even though the Commissioner of Customs in the earlier order-in-original dated 26.09.2000 in the first round of litigation, had categorically held that the department had discharged the burden of proof by way of giving declaration received from the Hong Kong, Customs. No evidence whatsoever in support of the price declared by the suppliers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Hong Kong Customs authorities are much higher than those reflected in the invoices submitted by the importers in India. During the course of investigation, the appellants have not been able to explain the huge difference between the two values i.e., declared value of ₹ 13,36,230.05 vis-`-vis export declarations value of ₹ 88,26,462.14. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide OIO No. 10/Commissioner/2000 dated 26.09.2000 wherein, he confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 71,15,105/-along with interest and held the goods liable to confiscation. He also imposed penalty of equivalent amount of duty of ₹ 71,15,105/-, under Section 114A read with 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. A personal penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- was also imposed on Shri Chandrakant Zangda, Proprietor/ Partner of the appellant Companies, under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set-aside the impugned order and remanded the matter vide order No. A/364-366/2006-CII CSTB dated 05.05.2006 with the following observations Having been granted only one date of hearing, which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find that adjudicating authority has extensively dealt with the appellant s contention of admissibility of the export declarations and the question of discrepancies raised by the appellants. For better appreciation, the same is reproduced below:- 36 The importer has argued that department had solely relied on the extraneous documents and drawn attention to the infirmities in the export declarations like that they are copies of the export declarations; that they did not bear attestation of/authentication by the customs authorities; that many declaration show country of origin as India; that in many cases export declarations have been prepared later to be the date of dispatch. I have seen the copies of the declarations, and though these are the copies of the export declarations, the Hong Kong Customs authorities vide their letter dated 19.04.96, have acknowledged that they had forwarded these declarations, which in a way, attests to the veracity of the declarations. Some declarations do show India as Country of origin but at the same time these declarations also show India as the Country of destination too. This could have been shown by a mistake. However, since all ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to the basic issue involved in the S.C.N. which is undervaluation of the goods imported by the naticees and which is clearly established by the export declaration. 38. It is further noticed that the Importer/noticee, on their part, have not come pu with any evidence to show that the value declared by them was indeed the correct transaction value of the goods imported. In this regard, it will be pertinent to point out that Shri C.K. Zangda, the proprietor of the Importer, in his statement dated 04.12.1995, had categorically admitted that no purchase order had been given to them in writing and that he had placed order(s) on phone only; that M/s Batshita international Ltd. was sending quotations for goods but no correspondence was maintained by him. It is quite surprising, because in the International market, one would expect that when the goods are being imported, the Importer would protect himself by entering into proper correspondence as well as Purchase/Sale Agreement with the Supplier of the goods, in order to safeguard his own interests, in the event of any dispute with the supplier. However, in the present case, though lakhs of rupees worth goods were imported, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they have no objection for the said 25 Export declarations to be used as evidence in judicial proceedings in India. It is also seen that the Export Declarations are signed by Thomas Chan, Merchandiser and Fradu Wang, Accountant on behalf of the Batshita International Limited. It also contains a declaration that he is the exporter and the particulars given in the declaration are accurate and complete. In view the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we find that these Export Declarations are admissible as evidence, and we hold so. 10. The learned Consultant for the appellants has relied upon few case laws. In the case of Collector of Customs vs. East Punjab Traders 1997 (89) ELT (SC), we find that the facts are different from the case in hand. In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court noted that the documents were photocopies and did not bear the signatures of either exporter or the Custom officer. In fact, they did not have any signature whatsoever. Therefore, the authenticity of these documents is suspected and it is not possible to presume that the originals are duly signed. The Hon ble Supreme Court also noted that on one of these copies of the alleged declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
