9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnasagara Village, Attibele, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 562107 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" or "the applicant co.") 4668/2015 30-3-2015 2. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 1' or 'the VIL") 4669/2015 30-3-2015 3. M/s. Century Appliances (hereinafter referred to as "the co-applicant No. 2") 4670/2015 30-3-2015 4. M/s. TGDC Guandong Display Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the co-applicant no. 3') 4671/2015 30-3-2015 5. Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 4') 4672/2015 30-3-2015 6. Sh. Rajendra Kedarnath Bang (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 5') 4673/2015 30-3-2015 7. Sh. Abhijit Ramakant Kotnis (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 6') 4674/2015 30-3-2015 8. Sh. Mahadevan Vishwanathan (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 7') 4675/2015 30-3-2015 9. Sh. Mukund Dattatray Badwe (hereinafter referred to as 'the co-applicant No. 8') 4676/2015 30-3-2015 10. M/s. Kail Ltd., Survey Nos. 6-11, Krishnasagara Village, Sector V, Block BP, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700005 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short 'CPT'), by artificially enhancing the assessable value of the imported goods. 3. Accordingly, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, which revealed that co-applicant No. 1 was having registered office at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, and manufacturing facilities at Aurangabad (Maharashtra), Bharuch (Gujarat) and Shahjahanpur (Rajasthan). They along with their group/associate companies, are engaged in the manufacture of various consumer electronic products, including colour televisions. They were also importing amongst many other items, the CPTs of various types to be used in the manufacture of colour television. It was further revealed that they were resorting to deliberate over-valuation in import of 14" & 21" CPTs from M/s. TGDC Guangdong Display Co. Ltd., China and M/s. TTD International Ltd., Hong Kong to evade payment of the ADD payable on import of CPTs from certain producers and exporters in specified countries as per Notifications No. 90/2008-Cus., dated 24-7-2008 & No. 50/2009-Cus., dated 15-5-2009. Bills of Entry for import of 14" & 21" CPTs were filled in the name of co-applicant No. 1 and some of its group/associate companies including the applicant Nos. 1 to 4. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to the Govt. exchequer was transferred to the suppliers who were their own group/associate companies. 8. The role of co-applicant as allegation in the SCN is as under :- 8.1 Sh. Abhijit Ramakant Kotnis (the co-applicant Nos. 6, 9, 15 and 20) : It has been alleged that being the Vice-President (Chief Procurement Officer) of M/s. VIL, he was incharge of material procurement activities related to M/s. VIL and its group/associate companies and he was aware that the import price of 21" CPTs was fixed on approval from the promoters Sh. P.N. Dhoot. He had accepted that the final decision regarding export/selling price of CPTs from M/s. TGDC & M/s. TTD to M/s. VIL and its group/associate companies in India, rested with Sh. V.N. Dhoot only, as both M/s. TGDC & M/s. TTD were controlled by him. Hence, he was aware the declared value was not the correct value and was artificially manipulated to evade the ADD. 8.2 Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (the co-applicant Nos. 4, 13, 18 and 23) : It has been alleged that he was the Senior Vice-President (Finance and Account) of M/s. VIL and was responsible for maintenance of the accounts of M/s. VIL. He was aware of the manipulation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher value for the imported goods and hence become a party to the conspiracy hatched to evade the payment of ADD. 9. The ADD so evaded by the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 and VIL has been calculated in the SCN, as under :- Sr. No. Name of the importer Port of import Ref. to Annexure Declared Assessable Value (Rs.) Re-determined Assessable Value (Rs.) ADD (Rs.) Adjudicating Authority (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. ICD, Waluj-Aurangabad A1, A2 & A3 6341503363 5052424678 1273011092 Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Aurangabad Commissionerate N-5, Town Centre, CIDCO Aurangabad-431030 2(i) M/s. Applicomp (India) Ltd. ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore B1 & B2 152581213 124811530 25711406 Commissioner of Customs, C.R. Building, Queen's Road, P.B. No. 5400, Bangalore-560001 2(ii) M/s. Applicomp (India) Ltd. Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva B1 & B2 46248180 39380995 5799219 Principal Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I, Mumbai Zone-II, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Distt. Raigad, Maharashtra Sub-totals [2(i)+2(ii)] 198829393 164192525 31510625 3 M/s. KAIL Ltd. Kolkata Sea Port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns having their own existence; that the present dispute pertain to the imports made by them directly from the foreign suppliers as well as goods purchased on high sea sale basis from the other applicants, for which they have paid high sea sales commission to the respective sellers; that as the goods under dispute imported prior to the amendment of Section 17 of the Act and the same have been physically examined by the proper officer before allowing clearance for home consumption, the proposed re-assessment of the same, in the SCN, is against the laid down provisions of review and appeal as provided in the Act, however, the applicant admitted the duty liability as calculated in the SCN, to buy peace once for all. The difference between the duty as demanded in the SCN vis-à-vis admitted duty liability claimed to be ought to the reasons that the Customs duty, at the time of import, was paid at the declared value, which has been proposed to be lowered in the SCN. Hence, the Customs duty on that account has been paid in excess at the time of import. The applicant also pointed out some calculation errors. 11.2 Similar submissions were made by the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-1-2016. Since, the applicant has requested to postpone the hearing, the same was re-fixed on 4-2-2016. On 4-2-2016, Shri Yatinder Singh, Director and Shri Vinod Kumar Bohra, Company Secretary appeared for M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. Shri Devender Singh, Advocate appeared for M/s. Kail Limited and M/s. Sky Appliances. Shri V.R. Shambhu, General Manager appeared for M/s. Millennium Appliances India Ltd. Shri K.M. Mondal Spl. Counsel and Shri K.M. Gujanan, SIO, DRI appeared for the Revenue. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and co-applicants requested the Bench that since their senior counsel is not available today hence, the case may be adjourned to some other date in February, 2016. After consultation with the applicant's counsel and consent of the Revenue, the case was re-fixed on 25-2-2016. It was made clear to everyone that no further adjournment will be granted in this case as it is already badly delayed. 16. On 25-2-2016 Shri S.S. Ladda, Advocate appearing for all applicant and co-applicants except M/s. Millennium Appliances India Ltd. stated that though he has been appointed advocate by the applicants, he had no proper Vakalatnama for appearance befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they disclosed the fact of their relationship with their overseas suppliers. They have also not filed any revised application(s) making a full and true disclosure of additional duty liability. There is also no Affidavit filed in this regard. Viewed from this angle, it can be safely said that there is no full and true disclosure of their additional duty liability. Therefore, the applications deserve to be rejected. (v) It is claimed by the applicant, M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. that during the investigation, due to alleged pressure from the DRI, M/s. VIL made deposit of Rs. 5 crores on its behalf. This is contrary to the facts on record. The fact of the matter is that the sum of Rs. 5 crores vide Demand Draft No. 788784, dated 2-9-2014 was paid by M/s. VIL towards its duty liability under its letterhead duly signed by its authorized representative. Having regard to this fact also, it can be said that applicant M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. has not fulfilled the condition (c) of First proviso to Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence the application deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. (vi) As per the SCN, during the investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
