2017 (11) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed Bill of Entry through Tuticorin Port. The Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally on the basis of an Alert Circular issued by DRI, New Delhi. As such, consignments were released provisionally upon furnishing of bond with bank guarantee. The case of the department is that, vide DRI Alert Circular, DRI informed that during the course of search of an importer Shri Rajkumar Anand, laptop was recovered along with various incriminating documents. On scrutiny of the said laptop, it was found that mixed lots of PU leather cloth fabrics having different thickness varying from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm were being imported but in majority of the import declarations, the thickness was declared to be lower and thus there was evasion of customs duty. Thu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble. It was seen that the supplies are from China origin and sales register of the import for relevant period showed that there was cash sale for even more than Rs. 20,000/- in each transaction / invoice and invoice in respect of credit sale did not indicate the full address of the customer. This created a doubt about the genuineness of sales transaction in respect of sales price. It was also noticed by the original authority that cash sales was for large amount and credit sales was without detail address of the customer, there is no scope to accept the contention of the respondent that the declared value is true and correct. At the same time, some of the importers who had imported identical goods through Tuticorin Port had voluntarily disc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AR has vehemently argued that enhancement was on the basis of DRI Alert Circular and therefore there were reasons to believe that the declared value is not correct. On going through the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by both sides, the declared value has been rejected on mere assumptions and presumptions. The department has not been able to adduce any cogent evidence for holding that the declared transaction value is not correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4.6 has rightly discussed that there is no allegation in the present case that the buyer is related to seller and therefore Rule 7A cannot be invoked without first excluding Rules 5 to 8 with valid reasons. Further, in para 4.11, he has observed that it is estab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X