Page 292 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

274 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

12. We have also heard the Learned Departmental Representative who
has vehemently supported the findings as given in the impugned order-in-
original.
13. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the record of
the appeal.
14. The issue for consideration before us in these proceedings is wheth-
er the consignments imported by the appellant vide 10 subject bills of entries
were ‘Segway electrically operated personal balancing vehicle’ in condition of
completely knocked down condition classifiable under Chapter Heading 8711 90
91 or whether these were CKD parts and assemblies of parts of electrically oper-
ated two wheelers for captive use as declared by the appellant in their import
bills of entries whereunder they have classified the same under Chapter Heading
8714 99 90 and whether the appellant are entitled for the benefit of the Notifica-
tion No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-2-2002 (Sl. No. 345) and Notification No. 12/2012-
Cus., dated 17-3-2012 (Sl. No. 443 and 444); (ii) whether the appellants have
misdeclared the description of the imported goods with an intent to evade cus-
toms duty; (iii) whether appellant are liable to pay the differential amount of the
customs duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and are also liable for
penalty under provisions of Sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act,
1962. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is relevant to first have a glance
at what is being imported by the appellant. It emerges from the investigation that
the appellant No. II namely Shri Rony Abraham business head of the appellant
No. I has submitted the samples of the import consignment which were in the
‘same form and condition’ as were being imported by them before the officers as
well as before Shri Vinod Soorma - Chartered Engineer. The samples of the im-
ported goods were in the form of power base, transmission assembly, gear box,
info key and wheels with tyres. These products were produced before the Char-
tered Engineer. The Chartered Engineer vide his report dated 1 August 2015
submitted as follows :
“This is to certify that I have inspected/examined the following units which
were imported by M/s. Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The same were
found in the form of assemblies of -
1. Transmission Assembly;
2. Power Base assembly (without Batteries);
3. Wheel Assembly with tyre; and
4. Info Key (in complete form).
All the above units were in the form of assemblies and not in knocked
down condition. These units which are in the form of assemblies, are abso-
lutely complete and are ready for use and only need to be attached/fixed to
each other for use off the final product i.e. Segway. The said inspection was
carried out at DRI - Delhi office on 26-7-2016”.
15. During the course of investigations statement of several other rele-
vant persons including Shri Rony Abraham - appellant No. II were recorded.
Shri Rony Abraham in his statement dated 8-7-2016 has stated that Segway were
being imported by them in parts and they consisted with the following compo-
nents :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  292