9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered, separately. As submitted by the learned counsel during hearing, by relying on the letter purported to have been written by the Appellant during investigation, whether it is forcefully obtained from the appellant or otherwise cannot be a basis for valuation. There is no proper investigation conducted by the investigating officer to find out the actual transaction value by following proper method of valuation including value of contemporaneous import. In the absence of any admissible evidence regarding contemporaneous import, there is no reason or justification to reject the value declared for the goods, which are declared in the Bill of Entry. In support of the method adopted, adjudicating authority held that the invoice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Mr. K. Vishwanath , Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER Per : P.A. Augustian The issue in the present appeal is regarding valuation of imported goods. Appellant had imported co-axial cables and filed Bill of Entry for its clearance. The goods were declared as i) B.W.C. RG6 Co-Axial Steel Cables-100M in 1920 rolls ii) B.W.C. RG6 Co-Axial Steel Cables-300M in 480 rolls packed in 560 cartons with a declared invoice value of USD 12028. The bill of entry was facilitated under RMS and the importer paid the duty of Rs. 154416/- on the assessable value of Rs. 646231/-as per their declaration. However, on intelligence the consignment was brought back for detailed examination. On examination it was found that the consignment contained g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned Counsel submits that on physical examination, it is found to contain 700 cartons including 150 cartons of copper co-axial cables. The Serial Numbers of the cartons were also different, which shows that the said the 150 cartons belongs to certain other consignment and therefore it was a clear case of the mix-up at the Load port. Moreover, this was confirmed by the overseas supplier vide letter dated 04.06.2012. The Learned Counsel further drew our attention to the large number of judgements and submits that the method adopted by the Respondent to assess the value is not in accordance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007. During investigation, investigating officer insisted upon the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d value and based on that proceedings were initiated. After issue of the show cause notice, Appellant produced communication from the overseas supplier regarding value of such goods. However, the Adjudicating authority rejected the letter on the ground that such submissions were not made till receipt of the show cause notice, hence the contention on price is evidently an afterthought only. Moreover, the Appellant has not furnished any other invoice covering the excess goods found in the imported consignment. Further, no invoice is not furnished during personal hearing. The Learned Counsel argued that 150 cartons (However, on examination by Customs the excess cartons found were only 140 cartons) belong to certain other consignment and a clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M is USD 3.58 (320 cartons) and that of B.W.C. RG6 co-axial steel cables-300M is USD 10.74 (240 cartons). We also find that the department has adopted a value of USD 5.60 for both B.W.C. RG6 co-axial steel cables-100M and B.W.C. RG6 co-axial steel cables-300M. We also find that there is a minor difference in the description of the goods declared, contained in 560 cartons and what was found on examination by customs, which cannot be held as complete mis-declaration. However, there is no evidence in the impugned order or the show cause notice to doubt the relation of the goods with the invoice produced while filing the Bill of Entry. With respect to the raw material involved, samples were drawn from the consignment and sent to Customs Laborat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the 140 cartons, we are constrained to uphold the value of Rs.3,56,510/- as determined by the Adjudicating authority as the assessable value. 7. As regards the confiscation, though the Appellant is claiming that they were not aware of the excess quantity, same cannot be considered as reasonable excuse for mis-declaring such large quantity of goods. Hence, the goods contained in 140 cartons having value of Rs.3,56,510/- are liable for confiscation. Since the Adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods and considering the ratio of the judgement of the Hon ble High Court and this Tribunal in similar cases and also in the absence of any allegation of illegality committed by the Appellant in the past, a redemption fine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
