9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce submitted at the time of import. However, it is observed that the proforma invoice is not issued in the name of the appellant. Otherwise also the price quoted in a proforma invoice cannot be held as the actual prices since the price of goods are settled after negotiation between the two parties. The revenue has not produced any document to prove that there was any extra payment made by the appellant towards purchase of the said goods. The confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty are consequential to the alleged under valuation of the imported goods by the appellant - Since there are no sufficient grounds as required for enhancement of assessable value, imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proforma invoices No. TSI-090527 dated 27.05.2009 was recovered which contained value of similar item more than that declared in the invoices submitted by the appellant at the time of importation. Based on the value shown in the said proforma invoice, differential Customs Duty of ₹ 16,90,056/- was demanded along with interest at the appropriate rate and imposition of penalty under Section 112(b), Section 114(a) (b) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act read with Section 46(4) Section 14 of the Customs Act. In reply to the said Show Cause Notice, it was submitted that there is no one to one co-relationship with the seized goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the supplier s stationery. Another importer, M/s. Trading Syndicate stated that Shri Tiwari was paid for such manipulations. Further, Shri Vipin Gupta, Proprietor of the appellant avoided his appearance before DRI inspite of several summons and Show Cause Notice also could not be issued to him. In this regard, a complaint was also filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade at Mumbai . 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is a settled position of law that assessment of a Bill of Entry is an appealable order and the department having not filed any appeal against the assessment order, the assessment is final and any demand against the finally assessed Bills of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs C C (I) , Nhava Sheva as reported in 2019 (365) E.L.T. 814 (Tri-Mumbai). 8. Learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that the investigation was taken on the basis of certain information regarding under valuation of Ball Valves against a number of importers at the material time. During the course of enquiry, various discrepancies were observed on the part of the importer, the CHA and the transporter. The proceeding was initiated against all of them including the importer. The appellant evaded appearance and examination by the investigating agency which supports the allegation made out in the proceeding. 9. We have heard submission from both sides and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
