9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri B. Satish Sundar, Adv. ORDER PER P. K. CHOUDHARY The brief facts of the case are that M/S Novel Digital Electronics, the respondent herein had filed a Bill of Entry No.518662 dated. 08-08-2002, which consisted of cables and connectors. The said bill was assessed on second check under DEPB scheme after accepting the declared value. Later, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, were in receipt of intelligence that the respondent had filed the said bill of entry by misdeclaring the goods in terms of the required specifications and their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the total liability (v) the entire goods covered under the said Bill of Entry totally valued at ₹ 9,96,496/-(CIF) should not be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (vi) a penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In response to the said notice, the proprietor had denied the allegations in the show cause notice. The allegation that the respondent had filed Bill of Entry by misdeclaring/not declaring the full description and other required specifications was emphatically denied. The further allegation that there has been evasion of payment of duty was denied by stating that the said allegations were unsustainable as they were decided without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and paid the differential duty. In his various statements also he stated that he only asked the supplier not to declare the brand, model, etc., with a view to pay lesser duty. Again in this case, a fair opportunity was given to him to come out with his own value to be paid to the overseas supplier and the same was accepted by the investigating agency. Consequently, the adjudicating authority had rejected the value declared in the Bill of Entry and had re-determined the value as ₹ 9,96,496/-. The differential duty of ₹ 4,13,158/- was appropriated against the amount of ₹ 5,06,222/-. The goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of ₹ 1,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any brand name, specifications and other details. The proprietor of the importing firm in his voluntary statement dated 20.08.2003, 23.08.2003 and 08.10.2003, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 stated that he had instructed his overseas supplier not to give any specifications in the import documents, viz., Bill of Lading, Invoice, and the Packing list and that he had mis-declared the actual specifications with a view to pay lesser amount of duty. b. That the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Prasant Glass Works (P) Ltd., Vs. Collector 1996 (87) ELT 518 (Tri.) has held that the proposition that the transaction value as shown in the invoice has some sanctity and the burden is on the Department to collect evidence to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent assessee had declared the consignment as cables and connectors but had failed to mention that the impugned goods were wiretek brand connectors and cables for computers. We further find that the imported goods as per records were of thousand meters running length and cables packed in 20 cartons which were of 100 meters running length. On market enquiries it was ascertained that three sets of values of similar goods were also ascertained which are quoted in the Order-in-Original. It was further ascertained that there was a comparison with the market values of similar goods and the value declared by the respondent herein was on the lesser side. We find that there has been a voluntary statement in which the prop had accepted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If the Court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary, then it is required to examine whether the statement is true. If the Court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base conviction. However, the prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Nina Chaka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C. Cus (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as there was no acceptance of misdeclaration and or misdescription ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
