9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes manufactured from the coiled steel sheets are at the core of the transformer; its physical and chemical properties are crucial to its efficiency and therefore, to its price. Visual examination and photographic display will not suffice as acceptable substitutes. For a legally valid assessment of duty, there can be no escapement from a downward revision in the assessable value of the imported goods. That is the inevitable consequence of misdeclaration and consequent rejection of declared value. Revenue cannot have its cake and eat it too. If the goods are secondary, the constitutional provision mandating the collection of tax chartered by law, cannot be ignored to maximise revenue. To do so is illegal. To affirm so is to abet disregard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted steel sheet coils' and thus claimed ineligible concessional rate of import duty prescribed in notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1 st March 2002. Appellant is a manufacturer of 'electrical transformers' and the 'cold rolled grain oriented steel sheet coils' are cut into laminates which are bound together with copper wire before being placed in the metal casing. Sheets in coils are imported from various suppliers and the two consignments were allegedly those of M/s AK Steels USA procured through M/s Bralco (Asia) Ltd, Malaysia. 3. One consignment of 95.249 metric tons, valued at US$ 314,321.70 against bill of entry no. 306497/9.8.2005, was subjected to examination at the time of import and seized, but subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of investigations. This, according to him, was sufficient in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 17 (Bom)]. It was also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Systems Components Pvt Ltd [2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC)] that an admitted position of an assessee does not have to be proved by Revenue thereafter. To counter the ground that goods should not have been confiscated, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Weston Components Ltd v. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be the common trade parlance that should enable distinguishment and we note that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order have even glanced in that direction. It is evident from standing order no. 62/2009 dated 21 st December 2009 of Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, cited by Learned Counsel, that the determination as prime and secondary is not amenable to an easy resolution; on the contrary, the necessity of expert analysis is the pith of that instruction. Moreover, the standing order is premised on the advantage to be derived by an importer from such misdescription. 8. The appellant has laid particular emphasis on the lack of a test report; we are also deprived of the expert opinion that, admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be no escapement from a downward revision in the assessable value of the imported goods. That is the inevitable consequence of misdeclaration and consequent rejection of declared value. Revenue cannot have its cake and eat it too. If the goods are secondary, the constitutional provision mandating the collection of tax chartered by law, cannot be ignored to maximise revenue. To do so is illegal. To affirm so is to abet disregard of the rule of law. The adjudication order is tainted by this lack of validity. 11. The appellant has, time and again, drawn attention to the absence of gain in such misdeclaration. The gap between the rates of duty is far outweighed by the gap in prices between prime and secondary. Reason would have us reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
