Page 236 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

418 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

termination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14
of the Customs Act, 1962. The declared values cannot be treated as genuine,
as admissible have been made by Shri Vishal Gupta and other, about the
correct value of 14” CPTs and how the same was inflated by adopting in-
genious means to avoid payment of anti-dumping duty. The facts of over-
valuation of CPTs imported from M/s. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Malaysia
have been further corroborated by statements of Shri Sandeep Devgun, rep-
resentative/commission agent of M/s. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Malaysia
in India and Shri Vinay Agarwal & Shri Umesh Gulhar. Declared values are
acceptable only if they are the sole consideration for sale and correctly re-
flective and price payable.
4. Appellant had sought for cross-examination of persons on whose
statement reliance was placed in the said show cause notice. The same was de-
nied by learned Original Authority. The appellant contended before the Original
Authority that their case of import had nothing to do with evasion of anti-
dumping duty by M/s. J.R. International and that modus operandi adopted by
M/s. J.R. International has no relevance in case of import by the appellant and
that the imports by M/s. J.R. International were made in the year 2009 and the
previous period whereas the imports made by the appellant were from May 2010
onwards and Anti-dumping duty was imposed w.e.f. 24 July, 2008. It was con-
tended before the Original Authority that appellant imported best quality picture
tube available for the overseas market and allegation of overvaluation in the im-
port coloured picture tube from M/s. Chunghwa, Malaysia were leveled without
having produced any evidence of contemporaneous price of similar or identical
goods and therefore, whole basis of rejection of transaction value at the threshold
was bad in law and unsustainable. They further contended that no evidence ex-
isted for any incriminating evidence for total amount of over invoiced amount
from any source and no incrimination documents were recovered during the
search of the premises and no other documents relating to any elicit receipt was
recovered during the course of search. They further contended that the statement
on the basis of which allegation of overvaluation stand made have not been cor-
roborated by any fact or any other evidence. They further contended that it is
settled position of law that statement is not sufficient to reject transaction value.
The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-
Original through which the Original Authority rejected the assessable value de-
clared in the 70 Bills of Entry and under Rule 12 of Customs (Determination of
Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 reduced the value from around Rs. 34.30
crore to around Rs. 27.01 crore and confiscated the goods and gave an option to
redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 crore. Further he con-
firmed anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs. 7,38,54,123/- under the provisions
of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and ordered to pay the same and imposed
equal penalty. Further he imposed penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the other appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order both the appellants are before this Tribunal.
5. We have heard Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Aanand appearing on
behalf of both the appellants. He has submitted that the goods imported during
the relevant time from May 2010 to January 2011 through 70 Bills of Entry were
assessed to duty and assessing officers did not find a case to impose anti-
dumping duty in view of the fact that landed value was more than the threshold
value required for the imposition of Anti-dumping duty. The assessments were
finalized as long back as May 2010 to January 2011 and Revenue had not filed
any appeal against the said assessment and after completing of appeal period

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  236