9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red goods, 30 pieces of Panasonic brand video cameras were also found. Since, there is no dispute on the fact of mis-declaration, we have no hesitation in upholding the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111 of the Customs Act 1962. Valuation of imported goods - evidence of contemporaneous import - Held that: - the Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT] has held that once the nature of goods is mis-declared, the value declared becomes unacceptable - in view of the mis-declaration by the importer, the declared values become un-acceptable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we also do not find any serious irregularity in the method adopted by the lower a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anasonic video camera were drawn in the presence of the appellant for carrying out market survey for the purpose of determining the assessable value for purposes of charging customs duty. The value of the consignment was worked out on the basis of the market enquiry after allowing adjustment for various duties. Sh. Mohal Lal Gupta, proprietor of the appellant, in his statements dated 22.11.2012 and 11.12.2012 admitted the mis-declaration as well as agreed to the values ascertained by customs. However, Sh. Mohal Lal Gupta retracted both his statements vide his letter dated 07.02.2013 and 07.05.2013. 5. SCN was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the mis-declared goods as well as charge customs duty on the basis of the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 715 (Tri) 8. The ld. Departmental Representative justified the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant had mis-declared the imported goods both in terms of description as well as the quantities. Consequently, the transaction value merits rejection. The value ascertained by the Department has also been accepted by Sh. M. L. Gupta in his initial statements. The retraction of the above statements after a gap of more than 2 months cannot be taken into cognizance. Finally he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2009 (235) ELT 193 (SC) to support the view that once the nature of goods is mis-declared, the value declared becomes unacceptable and the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments recorded on 22.11.2012 and 11.12.2012. However, these statements were subsequently retracted through his letter dated 07.02.2013 and his statement dated 07.01.2013. In this regard we are in agreement with the findings recorded in the impugned order that retraction after a protracted period of 75 days is not acceptable. It can only be considered as an afterthought. The lower authorities have recorded that evidence of contemporaneous import was not available in the period of 3-4 months prior to the present import. Hence the determination of value on the basis of market enquiry under rule 9 has been justified. 13. The appellant has relied on several case laws to justify the submission that the transaction value is required to be accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14(1). Rule 3 and 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules provide for transaction value method. Rejection of transaction value of goods by the Customs Authority being totally an unrealistic value has been found to be proper by this Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Shibani Engineering Systems, Bombay - [(1996) 10 SCC 42]. 14. In Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court held that the value, according to Section 14, shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. It was further held that by Rule 4(1) mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Sharp Business Machines v. Collector of Customs - [(1991) 1 SCC 154]; were found distinguishable as in these cases the rejection of transaction value was found justified being covered by special circumstances and/or mis-description of the imported goods to defraud revenue. 14. In line with the above observations of the Apex Court, we are of the view that in view of the mis-declaration by the importer, the declared values become un-acceptable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we also do not find any serious irregularity in the method adopted by the lower authorities. 15. In view of the above discussions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order which is sustained and the appeal is rejected. [Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
