9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].-1 . These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 46/2004 dated 12-5-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 2. The appellants imported Remote Access Service (RAS) which includes both Hardware and Software through Bangalore and also New Delhi. In respect of Bangalore, the imports were through filing of 17 Bills of Entry during the year 1999 and 2000. Two consignments were also imported from New Delhi. The Revenue conducted certain investigations and on 4-11-1999, they found a Packing Slip No. 13 dated 14-8-1999 in respect of one consignment which was imported and already cleared. It was revealed that the packing slip 13 which was fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een manufactured by a company called M/s. 3Com incorporated in USA. However, the consignments received through Bangalore have been routed through a Company called M/s. Micro United Network Pte. Ltd. ("MUN" in short), Singapore. The equipments which were imported through New Delhi have been directly supplied by M/s. 3Com. Investigations revealed that Shri J. Satish Kumar, one of the appellants and also the Director of the Company was also a Director in the Singapore Company. Therefore, it was held that the supplier of the equipment from Singapore and the appellant company are related persons. Another point is the packing slip recovered from the premises of the appellant in respect of one consignment revealed that the appellants had not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price of two configurations mentioned in the packing slip. In respect of one configuration, the value was of the order of US$ 51047 and in respect of the other configuration, the value arrived at by the Commissioner was US$ 36323. He took the highest of the above namely US$ 51047 and applied the same uniformly to all the imports made in Bangalore as well as in New Delhi and decided the assessable value. While arriving at it, he has observed that the appellant did not disclose the details of the configuration imported by them in respect of all the consignments cleared by them from Bangalore. Therefore, he has adopted US$ 51047 and arrived at the differential duty liability. Adopting the above method, the Commissioner demanded differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24-8-1999. It is true that in respect of the above Invoice, the declaration made by the appellants in the Bill of Entry submitted to the Customs is 3Com TC Hiper Hub System and 3Com TC Hiper Hub Chasis. They had declared a value of US$ 3500 in respect of the Hub System and in respect of the Hub Chasis US$ 100. However, the packing slip which was recovered contained the following remarks "The packing slip is for internal use only and not to be used for Customs." This packing slip contains the following configuration. Qty. Description Size(cms.) Remarks 3 3Com TC Hiper Hub System 3 ctns.1 x Managed dual 130A chassis with Hiper NMC 15 x Hiper DSP El card set1 x Hiper ARC set 63x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents have been imported in the year 2000. Even the Delhi consignments have been imported in the year 2000. Therefore, when the department had knowledge about the appellants' mis-declaration in respect of one consignment, they ought to have been more careful. While clearing the other consignments, they should have conducted thorough examination to ascertain the exact configuration. Presently, nobody knows the configuration of the items imported. It is also seen that there is no cooperation from the appellants. But, it is revealed in the course of the personal hearing that all the items which have been imported have been supplied to M/s. Satyam Computers, which is based in India only. No efforts have been made by the investigating officers t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed not be accepted. We do not find that the investigation or the adjudication authority has pin pointed the exact circumstance in which the declared Transaction Value was rejected. The appellants have argued that the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Singapore Company is a related person. In such circumstances, they have argued that the Adjudicating Authority could have even taken the value of the goods supplied directly by the 3Com company to the appellant New Delhi. They have also furnished certain invoices of the USA Company in respect of goods supplied to their Singapore Company. All these prices are much less than the price adopted by the Commissioner. 5.4 In view of the above observations, we do not find that there is any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
