9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were undervalued. Four show cause notices were issued. In the show cause notice dated 26.11.2001, it was alleged that the country of origin in respect of the said goods imported were USA, Japan, U.K., Russia, Europe etc. and the value of these goods assessed ranging between US$ 475 (C&F) to US$ 750 PMT (C&F). On that basis, the show cause notice proceeded as under: "15. In terms of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the value for the purpose of assessment shall be the transaction value of the goods under Rule 4 of the said Rules, ibid, the transaction value of the imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to Indian adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these Rules. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 inter alia, states that "... duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale...". In the instant case, from the facts stated above and the tables showing the comparative declared/assessed values of other importers as well as M/s. Alfa & National for import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Valuation Rules and, therefore, was required to be accepted. 4) According to the Tribunal, the Commissioner had treated the goods of higher value on the basis of statements of the two partners of the assessee in respect of goods imported by them in Mumbai wherein the goods were assessed at values ranging from US$ 485 to US$ 600 PMT. However, on going through the statement of these two partners, the Tribunal purportedly found that there was no such admission of undervaluation made by them on their part, which was made the basis of the Orderin- Original passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal, finding fault with the Order-in-Original, gave following reasons: "11. We also find substance in the contention that there is a variation between the prices of goods imported through Mumbai Port and through Chennai Port for the reason that, while the goods imported at Mumbai were under contract containing a guarantee clause, contracts under which the Chennai imports took place had no such clause. 12. There is yet another reason for rejecting loading and that is while applying Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, for determining the value of the goods the Commissioner has adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng from US$ 485 per MT (CIF) to US$ 750 PMT (CIF), depending upon the nature of the product, whereas the goods were being cleared at declared/assessed values ranging from US$ 210 to US$ 300 PMT CIF for import through Chennai port. The learned senior counsel also argued that the Tribunal wrongly recorded that there was no admission in the statements of the partners. He pointed out that Mr. Mahendra Parekh, one of the Partners of M/s. National Lamination specifically admitted that they were importing through the port of Chennai since the values assessed in Mumbai were very much higher and agreed to pay the duty differentials. Pursuant to the initiation of the investigations by the DRI, the importer reduced the imports of the impugned items through the port of Chennai and whatever clearances were effected the value was declared at US$ 485 PMT (CIF) for purposes of assessment. Based on the above investigation, show cause notices were issued to the importers/assessee asking them to show cause as to why the values declared by them in their Bills of Entry should not be rejected and the same be refixed under the 'Best Judgment' method in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much less compared to the value declared at Mumbai port. It was also argued that keeping in view the clearances at Mumbai port by the assessee themselves, minimum value of the various clearances was taken, which could not be faulted with. 8) After giving our due consideration to the submissions with reference to the records, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is unsustainable. In fact, the Tribunal has not only misinterpreted the statements of two partners of the assessee, it has also sidetracked and ignored other relevant material. We have gone through the statements of the two partners of the assessee and find that there is a categorical admission on their part that the prices/values declared by them for imports through Chennai port for similar items was much less compared to the values declared at Mumbai port. At this juncture itself, it would also be pertinent to point out that while recording the statement of Mr. Nilesh Parekh, partner of the assessee where he admitted the aforesaid facts, he also stated that the exact reason for declaring different values, even when the goods were similar, would be explained by his elder brother Mr. Mahendr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
