Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (4) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndicate any proposak to change the classification of the goods. Therefore, the change of classification cannot be sustained. As far as the valuation is concerned, the entire proposal of the Revenue is on two legs. The first is the appellant admitted in his statement that there was a difference between modified Tapioca Starch and Tapioca Starch and that he had imported Tapioca Starch in the disputed consignments. The TTSA prices during the relevant period were much higher. Based on these two facts, the assumption of the Revenue is that the prices were mis-declared by the appellant with an intent to evade duty and, therefore, the declared prices can be rejected retrospectively and a demand under Section 28 (4) can be issued because there w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Preventive) initiated the investigation, recorded statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Garg, Managing Director of the appellant and others and issued a SCN dated 26.02.2016 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why :- (i) The declared assessable value amounting to Rs. 74,62,416/- (Rs. Seventy four lakhs sixty two thousand four hundred sixteen only) with respect to the imports should not be rejected under the provisions of be Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007, and re-determined at Rs. 1,23,69,372/- (Rs. One Crore twenty three thousand sixty nine thousand three hundred seventy two only) being the actual transaction value under Rule 5 the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. One Crore twenty three lakhs sixty nine thousand three hundred seventy two only) under Rule 5 of the Rules ibid (being the value of similar goods) as the actual transaction value of the goods ; (ii) I confirm the demand of differential duty of Rs. 49,92,190/- (Rs. Forty nine lakhs ninety two thousand one hundred ninety only) in respect of imported goods as detailed in para 15 above under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and order recovery of the same from them along with interest under Section 28AA of the Act ibid. I appropriate the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lakhs only) already deposited by the importer vide TR-6 challans dated 20.12.2013 and 28.12.2013 at the time of investigation of the case against the above confir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the transaction value under Rule 12 and its re-determination under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 6. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue submits that (1) in the voluntary statements dated 09.12.2013, 09.06.20915 and 15.01.2016 the Managing Director of the appellant had categorically admitted that the imported goods was native Tapioca Starch, Industrial Grade which is not suitable for edible purposes and it was not a preparation of Tapioca Starch and that they never imported modified starch or preparation of starch. Their authorized customs house agent also made a statement on 24.09.2014 that on being shown CTH 11081410 he unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on these two facts, the assumption of the Revenue is that the prices were mis-declared by the appellant with an intent to evade duty and, therefore, the declared prices can be rejected retrospectively and a demand under Section 28 (4) can be issued because there was a willful mis-statement by the appellant. After examining the statements and the evidence available on record, we do not find any substantial evidence to reject the declared value. The only thing which goes in favour of Revenue is that the Managing Director of the appellant had given statements which, he retracted later. If the statements and the retraction are both considered, nothing survives in this demand. If neither is considered also, nothing survives. 9. In view of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates