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 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y either side or a notice under section 28 can be issued by the Revenue. While appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) can be for any aspect of the assessment, a notice under section 28 can be issued only to recover duty not paid, short paid or erroneously refunded or not levied and it can be issued only by the proper officer . The notice can be issued within the normal period of limitation of one year under section 28 (1) from the date of clearance of goods for 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. If the SCN is issued alleging non-payment or short payment of duty, the basis of such an allegat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Revenue to assail the order-in-appeal dated 21.05.2020 [impugned order] passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, whereby he rejected the Revenue s appeal and upheld the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 08.03.2017. 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 respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was no contract between him and the suppliers in writing for the prices. Coupled with the fact that no chemical analysis report available in respect of the imported goods in any of the shipment reflects to ill intent of the importer to evade customs duty to the Commissioner (Appeals) 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 Rul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r section 28 can be issued only to recover duty not paid, short paid or erroneously refunded or not levied and it can be issued only by the proper officer . The notice can be issued within the normal period of limitation of one year under section 28 (1) from the date of clearance of goods for 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 stateme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore us which shows that the declared value was incorrect apart from the statements. The statements, as summarized above, only show that the respondent was ignorant of many factors, but it does not establish that the respondent had mis-declared the value. It is also evident that there was no chemical 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 .....

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