Page 272 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

710 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M.K. Devendran, Superintendent (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Garg, Member (J)]. - Appellants have filed these two
appeals against the impugned order both dated 4-2-2019 passed by the Commis-
sioner of Customs whereby value declared by the importer has been rejected and
is re-fixed under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Im-
ported Goods) Rules, 2007 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each under
Section 117 of the Customs Act on the Customs Broker.
2. Since the issue involved in both the appeal is identical and both the
appellants are sister concerns, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together
for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein be-
low :

Appeal No. Appellants OIO No. Bill of Entry Customs Duty
C/20411/2019 M/s. Karachira COC-CUSTM- No. 7062957, Rs. 5,14,447/-
Coir Manufac- 000-APP- dated 3-7-2018
turers 48/2018-19,
dated 4-2-2019
C/20412/2019 M/s. Quality COC-CUSTM- No. 7569593, Rs. 10,64,270/-
Traders 000-APP- dated 9-8-2018
49/2018-19, No. 7151748,
dated 4-2-2019 dated 10-7-
2018

3. For the sake of convenience, we take the facts in the case of M/s. Ka-
rachira Coir Manufacturers.
M/s. Karachira Coir Manufacturers, No. 1/607, Thanneermukkom (PO),
Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala (IEC) No. 1002008743 filed Bill of Entry No.
7062957, dated 3-7-2018 for clearance of goods described as PVC Laminated
sheets (PVC floor covering) different sizes weighing 26985.600 Kgs. respectively
under the Customs Tariff 3918 10 90. Goods were imported from Thailand. The
importer/Customs Broker failed to declare the complete required declaration
including percentage of PVC content to ascertain the value and to compare with
the contemporary import price. On scrutiny, of the documents, it is found that
the supplier is M/s. K.H.I. Vanich Group Co., Bangkok, appears to be a trader
and not the manufacturer of the goods. The above said self-assessed Bill of Entry
was processed under RMS and the said Bills of Entry selected for both assess-
ment and examination. At the time of assessment it was noticed that the declared
value appears to be low when compared to the contemporary import value of
similar/identical goods, and therefore, importer/Customs Broker were issued
with an on-line query to produce documentary evidence to confirm the value as
per Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. The importer/Customs Broker did not pro-
duce any documents and requested to given first check examination. According-
ly, first check examination has been given for the Bill of Entry and ordered to
draw samples for testing and confirming the PVC content and the samples were
tested at CIPET and the CIPET vide their report No. 18146, dated 2-8-2018 re-
ported that PVC content is 51%.
4. Since the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant has indulged
in undervaluation and misdeclaration, therefore, show cause notice was issued to
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  272