SANTOSH M. JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and stay petitions are directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 354 & 355 (GR.V)/2013 (JNCH)/IMP -278 & 279 dated 04/04/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II.

(2.) VIDE the said order, the lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeals field by the appellant M/s. Daga International, Navi Mumbai and its proprietor Shri Santosh M. Jain for non -compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. In the interim order dated 22/01/2013, the only reason given for ordering pre -deposit is that the instant case involves a pre -meditated modus operandi and, therefore, a prima facie case is made out in favour of Revenue. Accordingly, the lower appellate authority has ordered for a pre -deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs by Shri Santosh M. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Daga International and Rs. 48,29,708/ - by M/s. Daga International towards differential duty confirmed in the order dated 22/03/2012 by the adjudicating authority. Hence the appellants are before us. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the interim order was passed without hearing the appellant and it was an ex -parte order and none of the submissions made by the appellants in their appeal memorandum has been considered while disposing of the stay petition. The present case involves allegation of undervaluation of tools imported by the appellant from Singapore. The charge of the Revenue is that, when compared with the price of identical/similar goods imported by authorised dealers in India and also price declarations made by the exporter in Singapore, the prices declared by the importer -appellant is low and is only about 1/4th or the 1/6th of the price declared by others. Further, the appellant had submitted before the appellate authority contemporaneous values of the imports made by several other importers of identical/similar goods in a few cases which compare well with the value declared by the appellant; however, these have not been considered by the appellate authority.

(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the charges made in the show cause notice and the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that there is a solid basis for enhancement of value by the adjudicating authority and there are evidences by way of reports obtained through the official channels and also imports made by authorised distributors/dealers of the foreign manufacturers. When compared with the prices declared by the authorised distributors/dealers, and also the information obtained through the official channels with respect to the export declarations made by the Singapore based exporter, the value declared by the appellant is very low, about 1/6th or 1/4th of the value declared by the other importers. Therefore, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the low values declared, the charge of undervaluation sustains and, therefore, the appellant should be put to terms.