9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consigned to M/s. Express International, Rs. 27,56,760/- CIF and Rs. 18,86,805/- CIF in respect of goods consigned to M/s. Classique Enterprises and M/s. Berlin Fashions respectively. The goods were thus collectively valued at Rs. 93,94,365/- CIF and Rs. 1,40,91,547/- LMV. (b) It is alleged that in respect of the consignments of "watch movements" no Invoice/Bill or any other documents nor any value or quantity, nature and quality or country of origin was found declared on the Customs Declaration Form. In the case of goods declared as "glass stones," the value declared on the customs declaration form was Hong Kong $ 250. The value declared on each consignment/lot was the same in Hong Kong $ 250, though quantity varied from 12.9 kgs. to 20 kgs. No supporting commercial invoice/bill was found. (c) From the residential premises of Shri Shashi Arora, searched various incriminating documents were seized which according to the department prove and also give the details regarding the modus operandi of the attempts to bring in goods through Post Parcels by evading Customs duty. The enquiries made reveal that Shri Shashi Arora was master minding the entire operation and was attempting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Records they were not and cannot be considered unmanifested parcels imported and attempted to be cleared clandestinely. In the normal course, as per procedure established by law, such parcels were required to be dealt with and cleared from Customs Controls as per the provisions of "Rules Regarding Postal Parcels letter packets from Foreign Posts in/out of India." This enactment stipulates, mail bags containing the parcels shall be appropriately labelled and as such will be allowed to land, pass, either with or separately from the regular mails at the Foreign Parcel Department of Foreign Post in the case of port of Bombay as Rule 1 of the rules. The Post Master at the Bombay Postal Wharf was thereafter required to present a memo showing number of parcels and Parcel Bills to the proper officer along with the senders declarations or declarations despatch notes etc. thereafter the Parcels were required to be assessed as per Rules 2(b) to 7 detention seizures, if required resorted to under Rule 8. This prescribed procedure under the rules is not followed. The arbitrary findings and reliance placed by the ld. DR, on prohibition issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 111(d) of the Customs Act as held by Commissioner (Appeals). The goods are not also liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as held by Commissioner (Appeals). The goods are not also liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), as the invoices subsequently produced contained all particulars......." (underlining supplied) Following the same and in facts, in this case, when Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers act is considered to be erroneous and in haste. Air Intelligence Officer cannot escape that remark for similar act. The confiscation under Section 111(m) is not upheld. The same is to be set aside. (c) The re-valuation arrived and reason to deny the value of glass stone found by the Commissioner are - "2.10 The ld. Advocate pointed out that the panchanama of the said goods revealed that the contents of the postal packages and the declaration made on the labels affixed on the packets are the same which are mentioned in the Annexures to the said panchanama value mentioned in the Customs Declaration Forms in respect of imitation glass stone is HK $ 250 for each consignment, however the weight of each consignment varied between 12.9 kg to 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of each parcel as 250 HKD and the weight of the each consignment around 20 Kgs. On confronting with the said correspondence dated 20-3-2003, Shri Shashi Arora has admitted that the contents of the said letter were true and that such direction was given to the supplier by him. The letter dated 20-3-2003, directing the said Shri Dilipbhai and the admission of Shri Shashi Arora in his statements that he ordered to the supplier in the month of April and the arrival of the postal consignment by Thai Airways in the month of May (14-5-2003), reveal that the consignment of glass stone were imported by Shri Shashi Arora as per his orders. Shri Shashi Arora has not contradicted the fact that the impugned goods were imported on the basis of his direction given to the supplier. The value declared on the Customs Declaration forms (of glass chattans and cup chains total 4250 HK $ equivalent to Indian Rs. 27,625/-) was as per the directions and the instructions of the buyer Shri Shashi Arora, so also the description and the quantity of the goods. The accompanying documents to the parcels containing glass chattan, cup chains etc. did not include any invoices, packing list or certificate of origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration Form as Rs. 27,625/- on the said photocopies of invoices as Rs. 91,374/- and maximum value Rs. 2,48,994/- was indicated in response to the show cause notice. The discrepancies in value for the same consignments (glass chattans and cup chains) declared or submitted by the noticee at different point of time clearly indicate that the noticee has suppressed the facts and have tried to mislead the department by making wrong submissions regarding the description and value of the goods under consideration." The above findings of the Commissioner cannot be accepted for the reasons - (i) The letter dated 11-5-2002 Shri Arora talks of subject suppliers to be of China Origin goods, the same claim was reiterated by importers in claiming the value to be US $ 18 84 equivalent to Rs. 91,374/- for 314 kgs of Glass Stones cup chains along with photocopies of invoices showing the same to be of China origin. (ii) From the panchanama dated 21-5-04 relied upon in the show cause notice, nowhere it appears that the goods have been opined by an expert, to be not a 'stock lot' of Chinese origin as claimed. The Commissioner is relying upon extraneous material to come to such a findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no evidence that OKTENT quality goods are not made in CHINA and can be imported only from EUROPE in EURO currency. (x) The valuation as arrived is not as par the valuation rules. There is no reason found to reject Transaction Value in this case. The invoices value have to be accepted and duty charged accordingly. (d) Commissioner as regards watch movements valuation found : "2.14 The importer also submitted vide their letter dated 6-8-2002, mentioned above, the photocopies of 3 invoices No. 002713, No. 002714 and No. 002717 all dated 13th May, 2002 for watch movements, addressed to the four different companies. The said 3 invoices contained the description of watch movements as WATCH MOVEMENT JAPAN PART AS CHINA NO. 2035", total quantity 70,000 pieces, having unit value of US $ 0.20. On this basis the total value of the consignments comes to 14,000 US $ equivalent to Indian Rs. 6,79,000/-. The learned Advocate have relied upon the said photocopies of 04 invoices and submitted that the maximum value of watch movements for 63,000 pieces should be Rs. 6,30,000/-. It is seen that the said photocopies of invoices were submitted after several months from the date of seizure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbers, make, country of origin and the name of the manufacturer and total value arrived at Rs. 35,61,600/- (CIF) and Rs. 53,42,400/- (LMV) based on the products and price of the goods of Japanese origin. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the value proposed in the show case notice. In view of the above, I find that the total value of Rs. 26,625/- CIF submitted in the reply to Show Cause Notice is grossly understand, unrealistic and hence not acceptable for the reasons discussed in the preceding paras. On the basis of the foregoing the total value of the 27 parcels of glass stones, cup chains and watch movements is placed at Rs. 62,29,988/- CIF and Rs. 93,44,982/- LMV." The same cannot be upheld in view of the following : (i) In the case of watch movements, no declaration regarding the description quantity, country of origin was on the Customs Declaration Form. The importer had submitted vide his letter dated 6-8-2002, 4 numbers of invoices all dated 13-5-2002 for watch movements. The description in the invoices were as follows : "Watch movement Japan part ass. Chine No. 2035". The value declared was US $ 0.20 per piece for a total quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied to be giving the alleged 'blue print' of the entire modus operandi of misdeclaration and under valuation is on interpretation. This letter is admitted by Shri Arora to have been written by him, and would be instructions on normal packing and value limits of parcels which Arora had to clear. The direction to keep value at HK $ 250 for a weight of 20 kgs. per parcel could be emanating from Arora's Counsel consideration of duty required to be paid by him per parcel on Glass Stones, which is the correct declaration of the goods and the weight for handling the size of parcel. Ipso facto the letter would not lead to a presumption of mala fides or attempt to smuggle by misdeclaration. (f) When no reason to arrive at confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) for contravention of notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and for misdeclaration of quantity, quality as value are found, the reasons arrived at for confiscation are not upheld, the orders on confiscation are to be set aside and appeals to be allowed. (g) When no goods are found to be liable to confiscation, the penalty as imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not called for and are set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
