9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Partner of the importing firm has admitted that the values shown in the export declaration are the correct values for the transaction. Therefore, no fault can be found if the assessable value is redetermined on the basis of the values declared in the export declarations and the duty liability determined accordingly. Thus the differential duty liability of ₹ 63,53,349.87 in respect of the 8 B/Es specified in Annexure B to the show cause notice is clearly sustainable in law Adjudicating authority has taken wrong exchange rate for calculating differential duty which needs correction. As regard quantity taken as 22.920 MT as against actual quantity of 16.130 MT in respect of bill of entry No. 97728 dated 28/11/2006 and also wrong exchange rate therein. On going through bill of entry, it is observed that the quantity shown in the bill of entry is 16.130 MT whereas against the said bill of entry the differential duty demand was calculated on 22.920 MT which was taken on the basis of export declaration. In this matter we are of the view that under any circumstances quantity cannot be increased as against the quantity mentioned in the bill of entry for the reason that the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings. However, the adjudicating authority has not considered these submissions. In respect of B/E No. 97728 dated 28/11/2006, the actual quantity imported is 16.130 MTs while the demand has been made taking the quantity as 22.920 MTs. Thus, there are many errors in the computation of duty demand. Therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for correct determination of duty demand taking into account the various submissions made by the appellant. 2. Shri. V.M. Doiphode, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that as per the ground taken in the application there is apparent mistake on record of the this Tribunals order dated 26/9/2014 inasmuch as this Tribunal in para 3 recorded the submission that though the export declaration is obtained in 15 cases, only in respect of 8 consignments, the same has been adopted for re-determination of the value and in respect of 7 cases export declaration have not been considered at all, thus adopted contrary stand. It is his submission that with respect of 8 consignments the export declarations were considered the same yardstick should have been adopted in respect of other 7 cases, therefore there is apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at para 3.4 and considering the same the detail findings was given which is reproduced below: 5.1 We have perused the computer print outs recovered from Good luck Metal Corporation, the commission agent. In respect of 13 consignments covered by 13B/ES, the actual transaction values are available purchase order/invoices wise and container wise for the supplies made by Dai Ichi, USA. The said printouts also contain the description and grade of the material supplied. These printouts were shown to Shri. Arun Kalidas Shah, partner of the importing firm, who admitted that the values shown therein are the actual transaction values, for each of the 13 B/Es. Thus the data contained in the computer printout has been corroborated by the importer. Sri. Amulakh Vardichand Shah of M/s. Goodluck Metal Corporation, the Commission agent for Dai Ichi, USA, has also admitted that the data contained in the computer printouts reflect the correct transaction values in respect of the imports made by M/s. Sangeeta. These statements have not been retracted at any point of time. These are the figures that have been adopted for the purpose of determination of actual value of imports and the differential d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Electronics [1996(82) ELT 499] has held that if export declarations filed at the port of export indicate a higher price for the goods than what is declared by the importer, the transaction value declared by the importer can be rejected and assessment can be made on the basis of value declared in the export declarations at the port of export. Further in his statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Sri. Arun Kalidas Shah, partner of the importing firm has admitted that the values shown in the export declaration are the correct values for the transaction. Therefore, no fault can be found if the assessable value is redetermined on the basis of the values declared in the export declarations and the duty liability determined accordingly. Thus the differential duty liability of ₹ 63,53,349.87 in respect of the 8 B/Es specified in Annexure B to the show cause notice is clearly sustainable in law and we hold accordingly. From the above detail findings of order, the issue raised in para 3.4 has been dealt with in detail and came to the conclusion that wherever computer printout were available and same has been admitted the with data contained in printout was taken as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
