9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017. The respondent imported goods declared as modified Tapioca Starch valued at U.S. $ 200 per M.T. and filed the bill of entry dated 09.09.2013. The consignment was stopped and on examination and subsequent testing, it was found that what was imported was "Tapioca Starch" and not "modified Tapioca Starch". The price of Tapioca Starch available on the website of Thai Tapioca Starch Association (TTSA) was between U.S. $ 420/- and U.S. $ 440/- per M.T. The respondent paid the differential duty. Thereafter a show cause notice [SCN] dated 05.01.2016 was issued to the respondent covering the past bills of entry under which the respondent had imported goods described as "modified Tapioca Starch". It is undisputed that those consignments were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has rejected the appeal contending that the declared value was rejected solely on the basis of data of TTS, but in fact in the live bill of entry the native Tapioca Starch was valued at US $ 535.63 per M.T. which was accepted by the importer. Comparison of National Import Data Base (NIDB) Data and TTSA rates show that the prices of U.S. $ 200 or 350 per M.T. declared by the respondent were low and they gave enough reason to doubt the transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determine it under Rule 5. (ii) As per the submission of the respondent it had no documentary evidence like purchase order or contract or agreement for the prices with the supplier of imported goods. (iii) The importer, in his statement dated 03.03.2015, admitted to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r home consumption or, within the extended period of limitation of 5 years if the short payment or non-payment is because of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. In this case, the SCN was issued invoking the extended period of limitation and there is not even any allegation of collusion or suppression of facts and the only allegation is of willful mis-statement of the value by the respondent, which was inferred from his statement. A summary of the statements as indicated in the grounds of appeal also shows that these statements indicated that the respondent did not know what type of modification was done to the Tapioca Starch and did not know the difference between the rate and quality of Indian Starch and Thailand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mical analysis report nor was any sample drawn to allege mis-declaration of the nature of the goods. Therefore, we do not find even a shred of evidence in this case to confirm the demand as proposed in the SCN. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner was correct in dropping the SCN and the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in upholding the decision in the impugned order. 7. As far as deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs by the respondent during the investigation is concerned, it can only be called as deposit. The mere fact that some amount has been deposited during investigation does not establish in any way the case of the Department. Needless to say since the respondent has succeeded, the amount so deposited should have been refunded to him, if it has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
