9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t describing it as Polyester Woven Fabrics valued at about Rs.45 lakhs and the importer was M/s Add International, Gandhidham. The consignment came in Oct.'02 but the original importer did not file Bills of Entry for a long time. The present appellant held negotiation with M/s Tripasa Industries for purchase of the imported consignment but lying uncleared and filed application for transshipment permission in Feb.'03 to transfer the consignment to Nhava Sheva. The transshipment permission was refused by the Assistnt Commissioner vide his order dt.4.6.2003 but the new importer was permitted to file Bill of Entry and clear the goods at Kandla Prt itself. (b) There were lot of correspondence and litigation in relation to these consignments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AIG) by declaring them as '100% Polyester Woven Fabrics (dyed)' at a rate of USD 0.67 per yard were deliberately not cleared by the said buyer. The foreign supplier then created certain documents including invoices (bearing same numbers and dates as those that were issued to AIG) favouring WTPL to manipulate the price so as to facilitate the clearance at a lower price of USD 0.48 per yard. This brings forth the fact that there had been an attempt for mis-declaration of value which cannot be overlooked though it is a different issue that due to certain trade rivalries and disputes, the goods were never sought to be cleared by either of the parties. The facts that TIL raised invoices bearing same numbers and dates on both TIL and WTPL sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice as well as the findings of the Commissioner in so far as the present appellant are concerned, do not throw any evidence based on which a conclusion that the present appellant was party to the mis-declaration of the description/value as held by the Commissioner can be sustained. The findings that the supplier created certain documents including invoices bearing same numbers and dates as of those which were issued to original importer also do not throw any light on the roles of the present appellant. There could be some suspicion that the present appellant may be aware, but this suspicion cannot take place of evidence. 6.4. As already noted, no statement has been taken from the present appellant seeking clarifications on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
