HYDERABAD IRON AND HARDWARE MERCHANTS AND SHRI AZEEMULLAH KHAN, MANAGING PARTNER Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 30/2007(H -II)Cus. dated 30 June, 2007.

(2.) THE brief facts are that basing on intelligence received that the appellants have imported furniture fittings from China and filed Bill of Entry dated 18.03.2005 by declaring a lower value to evade payment of customs duty, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched the Shop -cum -Office premises of importer and recovered computer printout of Proforma Invoice dated 04.11.2004 and Hard Disk of computer under Panchanama dated 19.03.2005. Scrutiny of the documents filed with the Customs for the purpose of clearance of goods under said BE revealed that the importer had filed Proforma Invoice dated 04.11.2004 for a total value of USD 7447.20 whereas the Proforma Invoice dated 04.11.2004 recovered from the shop -cum -office premises was for a total value of USD 22985.26 and the description, quantity of items invoiced in both these proforma invoices were one and same. The Commercial Invoice dated 08.01.2005, Packing List, Proforma Invoice submitted to Customs for filing the said BE and the Proforma Invoice recovered from the shop -cum -office premises of importer showed that the supplier was one and same i.e. M/s. Shanghai Meaton Trade Co., Limited, China. The import consignment had arrived under Bill of Lading and the assessable value declared in the BE was Rs. 3,34,297/ -. Basing on the statements given by the appellants, it appeared to the department that the value declared by the appellants was much lesser than the actual value of the goods. As it appeared that the appellants did not declare the correct value to the Customs for the purpose of assessment at the time of clearance of the import consignment; that purposefully procured two proforma invoices one reflecting the lesser value for the purpose of assessment by Customs and payment of duty and the other reflecting actual value for the purpose of payment to supplier; that the difference between the actual value and lesser value was paid by importer to the supplier through Hawala channels, the import consignment under said BE, which was awaiting clearance from Customs, was seized by the Officers of DRI under Panchanama dated 21.3.2007 on a reasonable belief of liable for confiscation.

(3.) THE appeal No. C/787/2007 is filed by the Proprietary firm and the appeal C/788/2007 is filed by the Proprietor/Managing Partner of the firm.