Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
S & S Furnishers vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi ... on 31 May, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. - IV
Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Customs/D-
II/IMP/ICD/TKD/1092/2020-21 dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals), New Delhi]
M/s. S & S Furnishers ...Appellant
Proprietor Sh. Vikas Arora,
111, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar West,
New Delhi - 110009
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs - New Delhi
(Airport and General) ...Respondent
New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi - 110037 APPEARANCE:
None for the Appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING: 31.01.2024 DATE OF DECISION: 31.05.2024 FINAL ORDER No. 55858/2024 DR. RACHNA GUPTA Present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 1092/2020-21 dated 01.12.2020. The facts relevant for the impugned purpose are as follows:
1.1 A specific intelligence was received in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding mis-declaration of goods entered for import under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The goods were examined in the presence of the proprietor of appellant's firm, Shri Naveen Arora, 2 Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB] the G-Card Holder of their customs broker M/s. Bhalinder Singh Mann and two independent witnesses. It was found that the goods were the freezers, however, were declared as display cabinets in the Bill of Entry; though the quantity mentioned for display cabinets in Bill of Entry was same as three number of freezers found in the consignment. On being enquired, Shri Naveen Arora vide his statement dated 22.09.2014 had admitted the mis-declaration with the consequential liability. Though the partial differential customs duty amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- was got deposited on 23.09.2014, however, the appellant failed to provide the transaction value of the impugned consignment. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice No. 26/10/2014 dated 13.03.2015 along with the recalculation chart for the differential duty amounting to Rs.7,91,318/- based upon the reassessed value of the impugned goods was served upon the appellant. The show cause notice had proposed confiscation of the seized goods having seizure value of Rs.48,75,813/-; rejection of the declared value of Rs.6,41,638/-; the demand of differential duty of Rs.7,91,318/- along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties. The said proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original bearing No. 97/2017 dated 10.10.2017. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the Order-in-
Appeal under challenge. Still being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal
2. None appeared for the appellant. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the department. 3
Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant had not appeared despite several adjournments and the warning of the last opportunity to make the final submissions. The arguments on behalf of the department were accordingly heard.
4. Learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings in Para 5.2 and 5.3 of the order under challenge. It is also mentioned that the appellant in the present case has otherwise accepted the reassessed value had voluntarily paid the differential amount of customs duty. Once method of valuation and the reassessed value is accepted by the assessee, the same cannot be challenged. The final order of this Tribunal dated 20.10.2020 in Appeal No. C/51601/2019 titled as Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Vs. M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Sons has been relied upon. With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed on merits as well as for want of non-prosecution on the part of the appellant who is not present even on the date of final submissions.
5. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the records, we observe that apparently and admittedly vide the Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014, the appellant had declared about importing three display cabinets classifying them under CTH 94035090. On examination of the consignment under the said Bill of Entry, there were found six freezers as follows:
S.No. Description of goods CTH
1 Chest Freezer (WD-500) 84183010
2 Chest Freezer (WD-700) 84183010
4
Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB]
3 Upright Freezer (LG-360XP) 84184010
4 Upright Freezer (LG-1000) 84186990
5 Upright Freezer (LG-230XP) 84184010
6 Upright Freezer (LG-1320) 84186990
along with the few other following items :
S.No. Description of goods CTH
1 Lift up Box (For furniture Hardware) 94036000
2 Channel (Slides) 83024900
3 Chair height adjuster 94019000
4 Wire Manager 94036000
5 Plastic gitti 94039000
6 Nuts 94039000
6. We also observe that the value of the recovered goods was reassessed and the differential duty was calculated. Apparently and admittedly, the said duty has been deposited by the appellant on 25.09.2014 itself. We observe that though vide a letter dated 18.05.2015 (received by department on 20.05.2015), the appellant has mentioned that they had paid the differential duty under pressure and in lieu of the early release of the detained goods. However, there is no denial in the said letter about the goods found in 40 feet container imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 were found to be freezers instead of display cabinets. There is no denial in the said letter that the goods were mis-declared as display cabinets under CTH 94035090 which were meant for wooden furniture. It is also an apparent admission in the said letter itself that some furniture hardware accessories were also found in the said container during examination, which were not declared in the Bill of Entry. In the light of apparent admission on the part of the appellant, the payment of differential duty cannot be held to be a duty paid under protest, it cannot be 5 Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB] held that there was no liability of the appellant. Otherwise also there is no retraction of the statement admitting mis-declaration and under valuation. Admissions are best evidence and need no further proof as per Section 52 of Indian Evidence Act.
7. The value mentioned in the Bill of Entry was the value for display cabinets. The value of freezers, found on examination, has been reassessed. There is nothing on record produced by the appellant to show that the reassessed value has been assessed in violation of statutory provisions and to prove that value reassessed is not the market value of freezers. The adjudicating authorities below have also held that appellant has adduced no evidence to falsify the alleged mis-declaration which is per se apparent as instead of declared display cabinets, freezers were admittedly found stuffed in the container imported vide the impugned Bill of Entry. The appellant has even failed to give the manufacturer invoice.
6. On the contrary, the department has proved sequential application of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 while calculating the reassessed value. It has also been specifically mentioned in the order under challenge that contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods could not be found, hence, the valuation of impugned consignment was done under Rule 7 of CVR, 2007. No evidence has been produced by the appellant to falsify the same. The appellant had rather kept himself absent. He has not even complied with the directions of the order for provisional release of the impugned goods. The appellant has not been appearing even before this Tribunal to pursue the present appeal. 6
Customs Appeal No. 51192 of 2022 [DB]
7. In the light of entire above discussion, we hold no infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal is accordingly ordered to be dismissed on merits as well as for want of prosecution on part of the appellant and for want of his presence. The order is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
[Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2024] (DR. RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HK