9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mis-declaration and undervaluation in imports of "Automotive Safety Glass" shield of assorted sizes and PU Sealant. The office premises and the residential premises of the appellant were searched on 12.10.2018. During investigation, incriminating documents like actual Commercial invoices of past imports was resumed vide Panchnama dated 12.10.2018 from the office premises of M/s Combine Trading Company. It was noticed that the actual value of "Automotive Safety Glass" wind shield were not correctly declared before the Customs at the time of Customs clearance. Documents in the form of parallel invoices (actual transaction value) resumed vide Panchnama dated 12.10.2018 from the office premises of M/s Combine Trading Company related to past imports, were also examined via-a-vis value declared and entered, by the said importer. Such examination indicated that the importer has also suppressed the actual transaction value in respect of past import consignments of Automotive Wind Shield. The details of the imported consignments was : i) "Automotive Safety Glass" windshield through 27 bills of entry for the period from 09.06.2015 to 26.04.2018 the details, whereof are given in Table B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the same foreign supplier was relied upon. Similarly, in respect of 11 consignment of PU Sealant, similar cases of import were investigated against M/s. Burberry International and M/s. Juneja Marketing Company where the importer admitted the actual price of PU Sealant of Chinese origin as ascertained at USD1.00(CIF) per piece was relied upon. The assessable value was accordingly, re-determined in terms of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 CVR, 2007. 6. Show cause notice dated 17.09.2020 was issued to the appellants demanding the differential duty of Rs.1,41,80,369/- after rejecting the self- assessed transaction value of Rs.4,38,37,565/- and re-determined as Rs.9,01,60,898/- proposing confiscation under section 111 (m) and penalty under section 114A and 114(AA) of the Act on the importer. The penalty under section 112(a)(ii)/ 112(b) (ii) and section 114AA was also proposed on Shri Jaspreet Singh the authorized signatory of M/s. Chandok Glass House. On adjudication, the show cause notice was confirmed by the impugned order. Hence, separate appeals have been filed by the company as well as by Shri Jaspreet Singh. 7. We have heard Shri N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and presented fabricated invoices for customs clearance, having lower value, thereby violated the provisions of section 17 (1) and section 46 of the Act as they failed to file the correct declaration in the bill of entry and proper self assessment. The declared value has, therefore been rightly rejected under rule 12 and re-determined under rule 9 on the basis of import price for the same goods from the same foreign supplier. In view of the mis-declaration in the transaction value the extended period had been rightly invoked for confiscating the goods under section 111 (m) of the Act and the appellant is liable to pay the differential custom duty with applicable interest under section 28AA of the Act along with penalty under section 114A of the Act. 10. Having heard both sides, we need to examine whether the impugned order has rightly decided the issue of mis-declaration of the transaction value resulting in undervaluation of the goods and thereby holding the appellant liable to the consequences of confiscation, differential customs duty along with interest and penalty. 11. The pre-liminary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he actual value of the imported consignment issued by M/s Xinyi Automobile Glass (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., China of 1148 pieces of automobile glasses and the other invoice valuing USD 11154.72 was for the purpose of assessment of customs duty. ii). Other invoice no. XY - AA - ANE1710 - M dated 05.02.2018 bearing higher import value of USD 20094.44 from M/s Xinyi Automobile Glass (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., China of 1334 pieces of automobile glasses as against the declared value of USD13344.37. From the aforesaid recovery of invoices, it is evident that two sets of parallel invoices were maintained, one was the actual invoice bearing higher valuation and the other parallel set of invoice of lower valuation was for the purpose of presentation before the customs for assessment. The apparent intent in resorting to such unlawful means was to suppress the actual transaction value so as to evade duty on the higher amount. 13. The other documents retrieved from the email IDs of Shri Ranbir Singh and Shri Jagmohan Kaushal contained the emails exchanged between the parties, which has been admitted by them. 14. We may now consider the other material evidence collected in the form of statements recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stics.in on mail id [email protected] and have tendered self certified printout of mail along with CI of value 22137.43 and CI of value 20094.44 ( CI No. XY-AA - ANE 170-M dated 05.02.2018)" iii). Shri Jaspreet Singh of M/s Chandok Glass House in his statement recorded on 24.10.2018 admitted that all the work related to import of Auto mobile Glass, sale purchase was being looked after by him as he was the authorised representative of the firm. He agreed with the statement of Shri Jagmohan Kaushal and had put his signatures on it in token of having accepting the same. With reference to the two parallel invoices of different amount, he admitted that the invoice showing the higher value is the actual value of the consignment and invoice with lower value was prepared for assessment purposes in Customs and the relevant contents of his statement reads as, " I admit our mistake and we are ready to pay duty for said BE and I have put my dated signature on it in token of having seen and understood the same." On being asked about the lower valuation, he stated that the values declared by them in the BE filed, the goods imported were of second quality which were rejected by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the actual invoice by the foreign supplier. Lastly, we find that Shri Jaspreet Singh has admitted the mistake and also the liability to make the payment of duty. In view of such admission of the actual importer, it is an open and shut case and nothing further needs to be proved in view of the principle, what is admitted need not be proved, Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras V Systems & Components Private Ltd 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC). 17. Once the goods imported are found to be mis-declared in valuation, the declared value needs to be rejected under rule 12 of CVR, 2007. Here the appellant has indulged in manipulation of the invoices and fraudulently suppressed the actual transaction value of the goods imported by them so as to evade the customs duty on higher valuation and therefore, the declared value has been rightly rejected in terms of rule 12. This leads to the redetermination of the value as per section 14 of the Act read with CVR, 2007 and in accordance therewith the revenue in the show cause notice has dealt in detail the sequential applicability of rule 4 to 8. Since the valuation could not be arrived at in terms of rule 4 to 8, the revenue determined the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported during the period 2017-18, it was admitted by the importer there that the actual price was 1.15USD per 310 ML bottle of PU Sealant. In that case also actual invoice was also retrieved from the email ids where the value shown was USD 1.15 per 310ML bottle. We do not find any error in the findings of the adjudicating authority that the comparison of the goods have been made on the average value per Kg made from the same supplier as that of the appellant on the basis of year wise and quantity wise imports of Automotive Windshield and also in respect of PU Sealant. 19. We do not dispute the contention raised by the appellant that the burden is on the revenue to prove the allegations made. Considering the investigations made, including the statements recorded under section 108 of the Act along with the documents recovered from the office premises of the appellant company, which stands admitted by the proprietor/importer as well as by Shri Jaspreet Singh, therefore in the light of the law laid down by the various forums, we can safely conclude that the revenue has discharged the initial onus of proof beyond any doubt and the burden has now shifted on the appellant to prove to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to unravel every link of the transaction, many facts relating to these illicit transactions remain in the knowledge of the person concerned, CC, Madras vs. D.Bhoormull. The department has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving the undervaluation, which is unrebutted by the appellant in the absence of any substantial evidence. 21. The contention raised by the appellant that the two invoices retrieved cannot be used as evidence in the absence of a certificate under section 138C of the Act is unsustainable in view of the decision of the this Tribunal in the case of Shri T.N.Malhotra and M/s. S.R.Bristle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2024 (6) TMI 202-CESTAT New Delhi, where we have held that the documents recovered from the e-mail id of the appellant and duly admitted cannot be rejected on the ground that requisite certificate has not been furnished. In the said case, we have relied on the decision of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Kishan Manjibhai Gadesriya 2022(4)TMI 316 (Guj.) where similar contention that the computer printouts taken out from the computer cannot be considered as evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as Shri Jagmohan Kaushal. They have admitted and self-certified them. Therefore, the objection raised in terms of section 138C of the Act does not survive. The revenue with the assistance of the appellant had co-related the Bills of Entry and the invoices retrieved by the appellant themselves from their e-mail-id reflecting the actual transaction value. The allegation of mis-declaration and under valuation has been established both by oral evidence as well as by the documentary evidence corroborating the same. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the applicability of the extended period of limitation invoked under section 28(4) of the Act. We find that the appellant has deliberately evaded the investigation as despite service of couple of summons they failed to appear. The failure on the part of the appellant to appear before the authorities and furnish the required information/ documents have been held to be deliberate violation of law and charge of suppression of facts is clearly made out, by the High Court of Bombay in Rizwan Travels v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad 2017(7)GSTL 404(Bom.). As discussed above, there is a deliberate mis-declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
