9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Redetermination of the value of imported goods. 2. Confiscation of goods and denial of redemption. 3. Imposition of penalties. 4. Request for reshipment of goods by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Redetermination of the Value of Imported Goods: The Commissioner of Customs redetermined the value of goods cleared under Bills of Entry Nos. 3136 and 3137 dated 27-3-1996 at Rs. 5,88,666/- and determined the assessable value on Bill of Entry No. 2741 dated 25-7-1996 to be USD 79,493. The appellants argued that the investigation by the department, which relied on the statements of the appellant and invoices purportedly issued by M/s. Matsushita Electrical Co. Ltd., Japan, was flawed. The appellants contended that the invoices were not properly authenticated and that the burden of proving under-valuation was not met by the department. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the statements and the evidence provided by the department, concluding that the proposed action to reassess the value was unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the department failed to produce original documents or contemporaneous import evidence, leading to the conclusion that the under-invoicing was not proven. 2. Confiscation of Goods and Denial of Redemption: The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 2741 and further ordered the confiscation of goods covered by IGM/BL No. KITANO/NYKS-150095437 without the option of redemption. The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument that the goods were not prohibited items and that the ownership had not passed to Kaiser as they did not retire the documents. The Tribunal referred to the precedent judgment in the case of M/s. Radiant Plastic Industries P. Ltd., which held that such goods were freely importable. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's position, stating that the goods should have been allowed for reshipment as per the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI v. Sampat Raj Duggar. 3. Imposition of Penalties: The Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 5,88,666/- on the appellant in Appeal No. C-190/98 and Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant in Appeal No. C/191/98, with no penalty on the appellant in Appeal No. 282/98. The appellants argued that the evidence relied upon by the department was inconsistent and did not conclusively prove under-valuation or any other violation warranting such penalties. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the lack of concrete evidence and the inconsistencies in the statements and documents provided by the department. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the imposition of penalties was unjustified. 4. Request for Reshipment of Goods by the Appellant: The appellant in Appeal No. 282/98 sought reshipment of the two consignments of video cassettes, arguing that Kaiser had abandoned the goods and did not retire the documents, meaning the ownership had not passed. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the goods were not prohibited items and that the department should have allowed reshipment. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Sampat Raj Duggar, which entitled the owner to reshipment of goods that were not prohibited. The Tribunal also noted that no Bill of Entry was filed for the consignment covered by the Bill of Lading dated 25-7-1996, making the charge under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act inapplicable. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, concluding that the redetermination of the value of goods, the confiscation orders, and the imposition of penalties were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the appellant's right to reshipment of the goods, providing consequential relief according to law.
|
