Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v). It is a well laid down principle that transaction value cannot be rejected in absence of specific proof or evidence so as to ensure that the case falls under exclusion clause rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules; no such reason has been alleged in the show cause notice; SCN does not allege as to which sub-clause of the aforesaid Rule has been contravened by the importer; there is no misdeclaration vis-à-vis the alleged import by RECPL. there is no evidence on record regarding the misdeclaration of the goods imported by the appellant; in the absence of higher prices declared for imports of the same kind and quality at about the same time, cannot be enhanced; Price of electronic components depends upon the manufacturer's brand, country of origin, timing of imports, quantity imported and other factors as laid down in Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 inthe absence of any such allegation, the transaction value declared by the appellants must be accepted as held in the following. Reliance is placed on the following case

(x).Learned Commissioner erred in imposing penalty on Proprietors when the penalty has been imposed on his proprietary concern as held in V.K. Enterprises Vs CCE, Panchkula - 2010 (249) ELT 462 (Tri-Del) andJayantibhai J. Patel Vs CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (244) ELT 140 (Tri. Ahmd); in the absence of mens reapenalty cannot be imposed Akbar BadruddinJiwaniVs Collector - 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC)

5. Learned Counsel, for that the appellant Shri Sushil Goel, Appeal No. C/786/2010, submits that penalty of Rs.2.50, 000, has been imposed on him under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, though a separate penalty has been imposed upon the firm M/s Communications Trade Links and 8 others firms controlled by Shri Satish Luthra as well as on other co-noticees; appellant has given no objection and had not made any entry in the bill of entries and therefore, Sections 14, 14 (1) & 14 (1A)of the Customs Act,1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988, are not applicable in the present case qua him; entire case has been made against the appellants on the basis of statement of Satish Luthra, who is quoted to have stated that he remitted the differential of the actual price and the under invoiced price declared before the Indian Customs to the foreign supplier in cash through Hawala Operators residing in Karol Bagh, Trans Yamuna in Shahdara and in Ashok Vihar; he did not know the exact names of these Hawala operators; he arranged Hawala amount by selling the undervalued and misdeclared imported goods against the actual price in cash; the statement of the appellant was recorded on 23.03.2006; prior to recording of his statement there was no material on record; he was not implicated by anybody else in whole case either by the importer or by the persons whose companies have been used by the importer i.e. Luthra Brothers; there is no documentary evidence at all in the show- cause notice, whereby the appellant can be connected with the alleged contravention made by the importers; neither the appellant had made any payment on behalf of any person resident abroad nor he had received any payment from any person on behalf of person resident abroad or in India; statement was retracted by the appellant at the first available opportunity; during the cross-examination conducted on 05.01.2009, Shri Satish Luthra specifically stated that he never met the appellant and has not send any money through the appellant; He relies upon to state that in case of retracted statements the burden is on the department to prove.