9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of value of imported goods for customs duty assessment. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Issue 1: Mis-declaration of value of imported goods for customs duty assessment The appellant, M/s. Uttam Impex, imported a consignment of Zeera Kajak and declared the value at US $1 per Kg. However, an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers led to an order-in-adjudication that the value was mis-declared with the intent to evade customs duty. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, enhanced the value to US $2 per Kg and confiscated the consignment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that their declared value was accurate based on similar assessments at Mumbai and Amritsar Customs. They presented evidence of domestic sale prices and auction values to support their claim that the declared value was in line with the actual transaction value. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest the appellant's declared value was incorrect, and hence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation order. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act The order-in-adjudication by the Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act due to the alleged mis-declaration of value by the importer. The appellant argued that their declared value was genuine and reflected the normal price of the goods, supported by evidence of similar assessments and domestic sale prices. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence presented by the appellant and the lack of evidence indicating an actual transaction at a different price, concluded that the enhancement of value based on investigations in other cases was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation order, and directed the release of the goods upon payment of customs duty on the declared value. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act In addition to the confiscation of goods, a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged this penalty before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-1, but the appeal was unsuccessful, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal, upon allowing the appeal against the confiscation order, did not specifically address the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) in the summarized judgment. However, it can be inferred that since the confiscation order was set aside due to the lack of justification for enhancing the value of the imported goods, the penalty under Section 112(a) may also be deemed unjustified and could potentially be overturned as a result of the appeal decision.
|
