SUPER DUPER T.V. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had filed a Bill of Entry dated 10.4.95 for clearance of video equipments of declared value Singapore Dollar 44,040. The Bill of Entry was accompanied by invoice dated 5.4.95 of M/s. Tai Yeng Electroniks, Singapore. From certain documents received from the Enforcement Directorate, it appeared to the Customs authorities that the appellants had undervalued the goods. The said documents included (a) quotation dated 14.2.96 received from Consulate -General of India in Dubai, which indicated prices in dirhams for similar goods (b) pricelist dt. 31.8.94 issued by Sony Rimsat Ltd. (Asia office) and (c) statements of one Shri S. Manickam and one Shri Anandavelu, recorded at Singapore by the Enforcement Directorate officers. Accordingly, a case of 'wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Customs duty' was booked against the appellant by the department. Show -cause notice dated 11.12.98 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) proposing to (a) reject the declared value and determine the assessable value of the goods at Rs. 24,99,858/ - under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 (b) demand differential duty of Rs. 12,32,479/ - by invoking the larger period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act (c) confiscate the goods (already seized) under Section 111 (m) of the Act and (d) impose penalty under Section 112(a)/114A of the Act. This notice also proposed to appropriate an earlier payment of Rs. 12 lakhs of the noticee towards the above demand of duty. The proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, ld.Commissioner confirmed the assessable value at Rs. 24,99,858/ - and demanded differential duty on that basis, ordered confiscation of the goods with option for redemption against payment of a fine Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,32,479/ - on the party. The Commissioner appropriated the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the demand of duty. The present appeal is directed against the Commissioner's order.

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we summarize the case of the appellants as follows:

(3.) WE have heard ld.SDR also, who reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. It is pointed out that the appellants had not made any payment for the goods to Singapore party named in the invoice. The appellants' case is that they obtained the goods as a gift from Sri Manickam but the latter retracted his earlier statement which was to the effect that he had made such gift to the former. In the absence of evidence of sale proceeds of the goods having been received by the Singapore party mentioned in the invoiced, the value indicated in that document cannot be accepted as transaction value. It is also submitted that the document titled "List of Instruments", which indicated higher prices for similar goods, was recovered from the appellants' own premises and they are estopped from the questioning evidentiary value of this document. Answering the preliminary objection raised by counsel, ld.SDR submits that SCN, in a case of this nature, was required to be issued within 6 months from the date of seizure (19.6.98) and, therefore, the SCN was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act. However, it is pointed out, the notice alleged the requisite facts for a demand under Section 28(1) of the Act and it demanded differential duty specifically under that provision by legitimately invoking the larger period of limitation on the ground of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. With reference to ld.counsel's objections relating to penalty, ld.SDR submits that the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on the party under Section 114A of the Act. Ld.Commissioner has rightly imposed penalty under Section 112 (a), which was in force at the time of commission of the offence.