9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over duty demand, fine, and penalty imposed on appellants for import of software in Diskettes with Manuals. Allegation of artificial value declaration by splitting total price. Application of extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Practice of indicating value towards Diskettes at 60% and printed manual at 40%. Commissioner's decision to confirm demand, confiscate consignment, and impose penalty. Analysis: The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original confirming a duty demand, fine, and penalty against the appellants for importing software in Diskettes with Manuals. The dispute revolved around the value declaration, with the Department alleging artificial manipulation by splitting the total price. The Commissioner upheld the demand, confiscation, and penalty based on this allegation. The appellants argued that they followed the established practice of indicating 60% value towards Diskettes and 40% towards the manual, a practice accepted by Customs Houses nationwide. The appellants contended that even if there was a misdeclaration in the split value, the total value remained accurate and available to the Department. They highlighted that the Commissioner acknowledged the historical practice and the correct total value declared by the importers. The appellants also argued that the extended period of limitation under Section 28 was wrongly invoked as the alleged misdeclaration occurred before the change in classification in April 1991. The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's findings, citing correspondence between the appellants and the foreign supplier as evidence of the deliberate splitting of values to manipulate prices. However, after considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. It noted the longstanding practice of splitting values for Diskettes and manuals at a 60:40 ratio, which was only changed after April 1991. Since the disputed consignments were cleared before this change, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the misdeclaration allegation was unfounded. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision involving similar circumstances where the Commissioner's order was set aside, emphasizing the lack of justification for confiscation, penalty, or demanding differential duty based on the historical practice followed by Customs Collectorates nationwide. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, granting consequential benefits to the appellants under the law. The judgment clarified the importance of considering established practices and historical contexts in assessing allegations of misdeclaration and manipulation of values in import transactions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the facts and legal precedents presented.
|
