9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of misdeclaration and violation of conditions of the Import Licence. 2. Allegation of undervaluation of the imported goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved the import of polyester fabrics declared as polyester velvet upholstery fabrics. The Commissioner denied the benefit of the advance licence and imposed penalties. The appellants argued that polyester fabrics and polyester velvet are not distinct, citing test reports. They also highlighted past instances of similar imports without objections. The Tribunal found that the imported materials were a type of polyester fabric, and there was no evidence they were unsuitable for making ladies dresses. The Commissioner's finding on velvet cloth not being polyester fabric was deemed conjectural, and the charge of licence condition violation was dismissed. The appellants' demonstration of stitched dresses from the fabric was not duly considered by the Commissioner, leading to the Tribunal overturning the decision. Issue 2: Regarding undervaluation, the Department relied on a different import for valuation comparison, which the Tribunal found incomparable in terms of goods, quantity, and origin. The lack of supporting documents for market enquiry and failure to provide a copy to the appellants rendered the valuation arbitrary. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that no case was established for undervaluation, leading to the dismissal of penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the Commissioner's order due to the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of licence condition violations and undervaluation of goods.
|
