9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied to be sufficient to reject it as the evidence of value of imported goods. It has been categorically held that the under valuation has to be proved that too, in the form of evidence about comparable imports. In the absence thereof, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. In the present case, admittedly there is no evidence of comparable imports at the relevant time with respect to the value of PVC panels and accessories imported by the appellant. In the absence thereof, there is no basis even to arrive at the re-determined value. The undervaluation of the impugned goods has been confirmed solely on the basis of the statement of the appellant. The said statement is alleged to be recorded under coercion, not only the said statement, but the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs made by the appellant by two demand drafts is also alleged to be involuntary. Indisputably a confession would come within the purview of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to which confession is irrelevant except if making the confusion appears to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise. The statement of the proprietor which has been alleged to be under coercion, the sole evidence is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f PVC panels and USD 0.10 per meter for PVC clips. The appellant also deposited two demand drafts of an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 5/- lakhs which got deposited on 25.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 being the differential duty for past imports. It is, thereafter that the impugned show cause notice No. 856/2019/25 dated 10.01.2020 was served upon the appellant proposing the rejection of declared value of Rs. 80,90,849/- to be re-determined as Rs. 1,11,90,836/- in terms of sub-rule (1) of under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules 2007 and to be re-determined under Rule 1(3) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. An amount of Rs. 9,60,376/- was proposed to be recovered along with the interest in respect of goods imported under aforementioned four Bills of Entries. The seized goods were proposed to be confiscated in terms of Section 111 (l) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penal action was proposed in terms of Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs voluntarily deposited by the appellant was proposed to be appropriated against the demand, interest and penalty to be confirmed against the appellant. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant alleging it to be the admission of under valuation on part of the appellant. It is submitted that the said statement was recorded under coercion, therefore, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Madras Vs. Systems Components Pvt. Ltd reported in 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) is wrongly relied upon by the adjudicating authority. In the said case the dispute was with respect to classification and not the valuation. Learned counsel impressed upon that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was also in-voluntary payment. The appellant was rather forced to deposit the said amount. Above all mere statement is not enough to enhance the value that too, in the absence of contemporaneous import of similar goods. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner (Imports) Mumbai Vs. Ganpati Overseas as reported in 2023 (386) ELT 802 (SC) is relied upon. The value, therefore, cannot be rejected without a cogent reasons and the evidence. The order under challenge is accordingly, prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 8. While rebutting the submissions, learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that Shri Anup Jain, par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained the meaning of word ordinarily occurring in Section 14 (sub-section 1) of the Customs Act holding that it is non-exceptional or usual instead of meaning universally . It has been held that by use of word ordinarily the indication is that ordinary value of the goods is what it would have been in course of international trade at the time of import. 12. In view of these observations of Hon ble Apex Court, I hold that primarily the value declared by the importer exporter has to be considered as the value for the purpose of assessment except there is some evidence/data to show that in the ordinary course of events in international trade the value is different than what has been declared. I observe that in the present case there is no such evidence/data produced by the department. 13. Coming to the issue of rejection of such value : 13.1 As it has already been held that what has to be seen by the department is the value or the cost of imported goods at the time of importation that is at the time when the goods reached the customs barrier, the value declared at that time i.e. invoice price as attached with bill of entry, has to be considered as assessable value. The department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceedings. The Hon ble Court clarified that if it appears to the Court that the making of confession was under any inducement, threat or promise the confession is liable to be excluded from the evidence. The Hon ble Apex Court also clarified that all admissions cannot be called as confessions and the initial burden lies upon the department. In another decision in the case of Mirach Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1998 (3) SCC 292, the Hon ble Apex court held that the burden of proving a charge of undervaluation lies upon the Revenue and the Revenue has to produce necessary evidence to prove the said charge. It has been held that what is to be examined is whether the Revenue has succeeded in showing that the apparent is not the real and that the price shown in the invoices does not reflect the true sale price. As already observed above, the department has not produced any evidence to support the presumption of under valuation as was raised in the impugned show cause notice. 16. In these circumstances, the statement of the proprietor which has been alleged to be under coercion, the sole evidence is held to have been w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
