9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted through 365 Bills of Entries - it appeared to revenue that in respect of 365 consignments imported by the present appellants during the above stated period there was undervalued and by adopting the value discovered during the investigation in respect of goods imported by Shri Vishal Madan differential Customs duty appeared to be recoverable from the present appellants was computed - HELD THAT:- There is no discussion as to how the goods imported by Shri Vishal Madan are similar goods to the goods imported by present appellants - It is very clear through the allegations made in the show cause notice and findings of Original Adjudicating Authority that Revenue nowhere established that the goods imported by Shri Vishal Madan and the goods imported by the appellants were similar goods since no such description and discussion has been recorded in the impugned order. The findings of Original Authority in respect of consignments cleared through said 365 Bills of Entry are not sustainable since the same are not based on evaluation of evidence - the impugned order in so far as the same is concerned with imports through said 365 Bills of Entry in respect of enhancement of value, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices filed by the suppliers at the port of export. Similarly, M/s Hamburg Sud India Pvt. Ltd. vide their letter dated 10.09.2013 forwarded to DRI two invoices filed by the suppliers at the port of export. Further, Orient Overseas Container Line vide their letter dated 03.09.2013 forwarded to DRI one invoice and seven export declarations filed by suppliers at the port of export. The said documents were referred to by DRI as load port documents. The said documents were correlated with respective Bills of Entry to compare the information contained in the said load port documents and the bills of entry filed by the above stated three importers to examine the correctness of the value declared for the purpose of assessment of Customs duty. It appeared to revenue that the value declared by the importers who are appellant in the present case was much less than the value reflected in load port documents and therefore, in respect of 13 bills of entry it appeared to revenue that there was under valuation of the goods and differential Customs duty was required to be recovered from the appellants. In another case of investigation in respect of PVC/PU Coated Fabrics imported by one Shri Vish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties under Section 112 (a), 112(b), 112A 114AA of Customs Act, should not be imposed on them. Further, through the same show cause notice M/s Rightways Exim Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JKB Exim Pvt. Ltd. was called upon to show cause to Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Customs, as to why declared value should not be increased from around ₹ 10.65 crores to around ₹ 19.68 crores and from around ₹ 6.67 to around ₹ 14.62 crores respectively and why differential customs duty of around ₹ 2.51 crores and ₹ 2.02 crores respectively should not be demanded from them under the said Section 28 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 (a), 112 (b), 114A 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them. Similarly, M/s Hero Traders and Shri Jamaal Akhtar were called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs Customs House, Kolkatta as to why value should not be increased from around ₹ 7.66 crores to around ₹ 10.79 crores in respect of goods imported by them and why differential Customs duty of around ₹ 62.5 lakhs should not be recovered from them and why similar penalties should not be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... higher than the values adopted for re-determination of value based on evidences found in respect of investigation of goods imported by Shri Vishal Madan. The Original Adjudicating Authority adjudicated the said show cause notice through the impugned Order-in-Original and through the said order, he had accepted all the proposals contained in the said show cause notice dated 16.05.2014 and accepted enhancement of value proposed therein and confirmed the differential duties proposed in the said show cause notice. He further ordered for confiscation of all the goods proposed in the said show cause notice and imposed penalties equal to the duty and also ordered to pay the interest. He imposed penalties on Shri Kamaal Akhtar and Shri Jamaal Akhtar under the provisions of Section 112 (a), 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order appellants are before this Tribunal. 4. Shri Abhijit Bhattacharyya Shri Sumanta De learned Advocates and Shri Siddharth Kak, learned Consultant appeared on behalf of all the appellants. On behalf of all the appellants Shri Abhijit Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate argued the case. He has submitted that the allegations in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has also not established through the impugned order that the goods imported by Shri Vishal Madan and goods imported by the present appellants were similar goods. Since there is no discussion in the impugned order on how the said two sets of goods are similar, the impugned order in respect of 365 Bills of Entry and the goods involved therein is not sustainable. He further submitted that since the entire differential duty demanded is not sustainable the personal penalties imposed on all the appellants are also not sustainable. He has further submitted that Revenue has not disclosed any evidence that the appellants have paid any amount more than the amount mentioned in the invoices on the basis of which assessments were done on the importation of the goods. Further, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and to allow the appeal. 5. Learned Authorised Representative Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari appearing on behalf of Revenue has supported the impugned order. Further, he has also submitted written submissions which are repetition of the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of records, we n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. For the sake of clarity, we reproduce para 7.3 of said show cause notice dated 16.05.2014 as under:- 7.3 . Analysis of similar goods:- Investigation in another case of import of PU/PVC coated fabric (Artificial leather cloth), pertaining to Vishal Madan who caused imports through firms viz. M/s Monarch, M/s RVK Impex, M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Impex and M/s M R Impex (cleared through Surendra Kumar Pandey) revealed that the actual transaction value of the goods was in the range of US $1.77 C F to 3.7 FOB per meter instead of US $ 0.4 as declared by Vishal Madan to the Customs Authority in the year 2008. The details of the actual transaction value of these goods were recovered from the Email Account of Vishal Madan. On being confronted with the facts, Vishal Madan in his statement dated 1.4.2013 admitted that the value of PU/PVC coated fabric (artificial leather cloth) was in the range of US $ 1.77 C F to US $ 3.3 FOB. It was also revealed that Surendra Pandey, the CHA was an accomplice in the fraud committed by Vishal Madan. On completion of investigation in the said case, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 08.04.2013 vide F.No. DRI/MZU/D/INV- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Traders appears to be as follows - Sr.No. Year Minimum value of similar Terms of Payment 1 2009 1.77 C F 2 2010 0.99 C F 3 2011 1.15 C F 4 2012 1.40 FOB Now, we re-produce findings of Original Authority in respect of the same as under:- Further, investigations have also revealed that the goods imported by M/s JKB Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rightways Exim Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hero Traders are similar to the goods imported by Sh. Vishal Madan through his firms. The actual transaction value of these g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
