AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. No.,Appeal No.,Appellant's Name & Address,Filed on
1,ICD/347/2010,"Sanjeev Grover, 4 Laxmi Rattan Market, Opp Govt. of India
Press, NIT, Faridabad",24.12.2009
2,IC0/348/2010,"M/s Groversons, 4 Laxmi Rattan Market, Opp Govt. of India
Press, NIT, Faridabad",24.12.2009
voluntary statement dated 03.11.2006, inter-alia, stated that the prevailing prices of PFAD (Palm Fatty Acid Distillate) was around US$ 340",,,
PMT in Malaysia; that the landed cost of PFAD in India was around US$ 440 PMT which included US$ 340 PMT for the goods, US$ 50",,,
PMT for drumming and US$ 50 PMT as freight charges; that the local importers and traders asked him to arrange the invoices at price in,,,
the range of US$ 180 PMT for mixed acid oil and US$ 210 PMT for PFAD; that accordingly, he contacted the suppliers in Malaysia to",,,
issue invoices in the range of US$ 210 PMT; and that the suppliers agreed on invoicing those goods at that rate with the condition that the,,,
difference of invoice rate and actual rate would be sent to them in advance.,,,
(c) Shri Anil Kumar Arora, the other indenting agent in his voluntary statement dated 06.11.2006, inter-alia, also stated that the prevailing",,,
price of PFAD (Palm Fatty Acid Distillate) which at the time of import was being declared as Mixed Fatty Acid )MFA) by the Indian,,,
importers was around US$ 320 to 350 PMT in Malaysia; that the landed cost of PFAD in India was around US$ 430 to 440 PMT; that on,,,
the request of Indian importers in India, he used to ask the suppliers in Malaysia to issue invoices in the range of US$ 210 to 220 PMT for",,,
PFAD and US$ 180 to 190 PMT for MFA; that the suppliers used to issue invoices for the consignments on these prices; that the PFAD and,,,
the Mixed Fatty Acid which were being so declared by the importer, were one and the same thing; that he received US$ 3 to 5 PMT as",,,
commission for the deals brokered by him"".",,,
Thus enhancement of value has been done merely on the basis of the statements of the indenters who too spoke about value of the said goods in,,,
Malaysia. Enhancement of value merely on the basis of such statements of the indenters in the absence of any inculpatory statement of the assessee -,,,
appellant and without the support of value of any contemporaneous imports of identical I similar goods is totally unsustainable particularly when the,,,
impugned goods came from UAE and not from Malaysia. When the allegation of undervaluation is not sustainable the question of RF and penalty,,,
simply does not arise.,,,
In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.",,,