9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir say that the subject consignment is as secondary defective seamless pipes except declaration on invoice/ Bill of Entry and letter of supplier. The plea that overseas supplier from China is a trader and not manufacturer and that the supplier could not give the details of manufacture, being trade secret as per international norms is rather frivolous. The Appellant's contentions do not hold any water. In view of the above and lack of any evidence put forth by the Appellant, I hold that the impugned Order in Original passed by lower authority is legal and proper and needs no intervention." 1.2 Adjudicating Authority has in his order in original held as follows: "29 On the basis of findings above, I order as follows: a) The declared value of the goods is rejected and the provisional assessment of goods is finalized on the basis of unit value of Rs. 145.11 per kg in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. b) The differential duty of Rs. 5,49,851/- is confirmed and demand along with interest under proviso section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 Under Section 28AB ibid. c) The goods valued at Rs. 29,05,392/- are confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) Carbon=0.058%, 2) Chromium=17.24%, 3) Nickel = 8.03%, 4) Molybdenum = 0.3%." Subsequently on 11.06.2007 clarification was sought from VJTI with regards to JIS Grades in respect of the said samples. By their letter dated 15.06.2007 they suggested S303 grade of JIS Standards. 2.5 Further investigations were carried on and statement of Shri Nilesh Chandan, Partner in importer firm was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. 2.6 Importer vide his letter dated 09.02.2007 stated that supplier could not produce any further evidence in support of their declaration about the goods, for the reason that supplier has expressed its inability to disclose the name of the principal as it is trade secret in the international market. 2.7 Thereafter a show cause notice dated 15.06.2009 was issued to the importer (Appellant), holding them liable for misdeclaration of imported goods as defective goods. The show cause notice thus proposed to reject the declared value under Rule 10A and assess the goods as prime quality goods by determining the value by application of Rule 5 of Custom Valuation Rules, 1988 by adopting the price of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. 2.8 The show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineer Certificate after visual inspection and examination of the goods clearly state that the goods were of prime quality and not defective. He submitted that the VJTI has also stated that the goods confirmed to S303 of JIS. He submitted that these evidences clearly showed that goods imported were misdeclared and hence their value was rightly rejected by application of Rule 10A. Thus determination of value of imported goods by application of Rule 5 on the basis of contemporaneous imports cannot be faulted with. 5.1 We have considered the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 5.2 Entire case of the revenue has been made on the basis of: i. Examination Report dated 05.01.2007 carried out by the officers of SIIB (X) ii. Report/ Certificate of Inspection Ref No RCE/MUM/0607/134 dated 12.01.2007 iii. The Dy C C Mumbai Test Report No 1 vide Lab No 30/SIIB 9X) dated 19.01.2007 and No 2 Lab No 31/SIIB (X) dated 19.01.2007. iv. Test Report of VJTI vide Reference No TST/6/Met- 292/2007/306/07 dated 16.04.2007. v. Statement of Shri Nilesh Chandan, Partner in the importing firm. 5.3 From the examination of the above evidence we find that the reports ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the goods in question were of prime quality. But, if the invoices of the Samissa & Co., are to be relied upon, then it is difficult at this stage to discard the statement in the invoices respecting the petitioner that the goods were defectives and were valued at a lesser price. But the petitioner himself agreed to sell the goods at 15,000/- P.M.T. on 15-3-1982 which is exclusive of increased rate of taxes. I, therefore, fix the value at Rs. 15,000/- per M.T. provisionally." 5.6 In view of the above evidences we are not in position to agree with the claim of revenue that the goods are prime quality goods confirming to AISI 303/304. If the manner in which revenue has proceeded to hold the defective stainless steel pipes to be of prime quality on the basis visual inspection report we have no doubt that there can be many more tragedies akin to Bhopal Gas Tragedy in this country. Can such defective pipes which do not confirm to the prescribed standard be used for the same purpose for which certified prime goods of that standard are used. Revenue has further gone on to value the said goods as prime quality goods of the same standard to which the test report of Deputy Chief Chemist CR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
