9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific information was gathered by the officers of SIIB, ICD (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi that the goods imported in Container No.MSKU6062010 covered under Bill of Entry No.5221180 dated 11.05.2016 imported by the Appellant and filed through their Custom Broker M/s.KVS CARGO (hereinafter referred to as the CB or CHA) were mis-declared with respect to description and value of the goods to evade customs duty. The declared assessable value of the goods was ₹ 13,90,663/- and declared duty was ₹ 2,63,437/-. 2. The said container was examined on 17.05.2016 in presence of two independent witnesses and representative of custom broker. The goods found during examination were as under:- Sl. No. Details of Goods Found Quantity per carton No. of Cartons Total Quantity 1. Reverse Osmosis Element (Nano H20)Brand LG Chem Model No.LGTWRO-1812-80 25 Pcs. 520 13000 Pcs During examination, it was observed that the party had declared the goods as Reverse Osmosis Element 80 GP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were perishable in nature as there was water mixed with citric acid to keep reverse osmosis element wet. It was further mentioned in the letter that they had contacted their supplier and asked them how they had supplied LG brand reverse osmosis element. The overseas supplier informed them that this was a trial production product and the purity of water passed through it might not be upto the LG Standard and the vendor was not supposed to put LG Sticker on the Reverse Osmosis Element, but by mistake he had fixed the stickers; that the supplier had sold them at value declared by them in Bill of Entry as it was trial production, and that the material did not meet LG Standard. The Appellant vide their letter dated 17.06.2016 again requested for provisional release of the goods, however, the same was not granted by the jurisdictional authority as the goods appeared to be counterfeit in view of importer s letter dated 15.06.2016. 6. To confirm the genuineness of the goods, a letter was written to M/s.LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. vide letter dated 23.06.2016 along with the samples. In response, M/s. LG India vide their letter dated 27.06.2016 clarified that the item in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proposed to be adjusted. 9. Further, it was proposed as to why under Section 112(a) of the Act, Shri Rajneesh Tyagi, Director and Shri Umeshwar Prasad, Authorised Signatory of M/s Manvi Exim Pvt. Ltd. should not be penalised. 10. Show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2017 on context, confirming the proposals in the show cause notice and as regards the mis-declaration of value and re-determination of the value. Further, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 10 lakhs along with interest. Duty of ₹ 2,63,436/- already paid was ordered to be adjusted and bank guarantee was ordered to be appropriated towards payment of duty. Further, penalty of ₹ 7,38,675/- was imposed on the appellant company under Section 114 A of the Act. Further, penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each was imposed upon Shri Rajneesh Tyagi, Director and Shri Umeshwar Prasad, Authorised Signatory under Section 112 (a) of the Act. 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 12. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that there is no direct evidence to establish that the impugned goods were manufactured by LG Chemicals Ltd. However, it is evident that the goods were mis-declared and hence, were liable for confiscation. As regards the value declared, it is observed that it was onus on the Department to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value. The declared price can be rejected on the basis of the reasonable and cogent evidence only. Reliance was placed on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), wherein it has been held that, unless the price actually paid for the particular transaction falls within the exceptions in Rule 4(2), the Customs Authorities are bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. Further Section 14(1) read with Rule 4 provides that, the transaction value has to be accepted in absence of specific conditions and circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularly, Rule 4(2). It is held that in absence of the conditions precedent under Rule 4 (2) read with proviso of Customs Valuation Rules, the Department is bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. It was further held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
