Order date – 01 August 2022

Facts – 

• The appellant, Jeen Bhavani International imported 63 consignments of Linen Yarn, Ramie Yarn and other items from various overseas suppliers, based in China between 01.08.2014 and 10.11.2016 appropriately filed bills of entry.
• On the basis of specific information received, indicating that the appellant indulged in gross under valuation of the imported goods, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Zonal Unit, Surat conducted a detailed investigation into the matter.
• The Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2019, after investigation on the basis of information received, proposing rejection of the declared value of goods, re-determination, confiscation, recovery of the differential customs duty along with interest and imposing penalties on the appellants. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the proceedings without any regards to due procedure of law or proper evidence and tax imposed thereupon be justifiable?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the procedures laid down under Section 138C have not been observed by the department, in addition to non mentioning of  the details of the CPU, the place of installation in the premise, custodian of the CPU etc. Therefore, the Tribunal found  that the documents retrieved, lost their evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon for upholding the charges of undervaluation of goods and demand of the differential duty. 
• Further, revenue has failed in appreciating the purpose of the insurance policy was entirely different and has no connectivity with the customs statute, wherein the transaction value alone is to be considered for determination of the duty liability and not otherwise.
• The Tribunal opined that the charges of undervaluation, without proper substantiation, would not meet the ends of justice in support of confirmation of the adjudged demands and held that none of the evidences relied upon by the department, to allege the undervaluation resorted to by the appellants, stand the scrutiny of Law.
• It further held that the department failed to substantiate the allegations by cogent and legally admissible evidence and hence allowed the appeal.