9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported photocopier parts, rejection of declared value by Commissioner of Customs, misclassification of goods, rejection of contemporaneous import evidence, absence of proper documentation, inconsistency in Commissioner's findings.
The judgment involves an appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata regarding the misdeclaration and gross undervaluation of photocopier parts imported by a firm. The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated an investigation due to misdeclaration and undervaluation. The importer failed to provide essential details such as brand, make, part number, and manufacturer's invoice for the goods. The Commissioner re-determined the value, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines. The appellant argued that evidence of contemporaneous import of identical goods was provided, but the Commissioner rejected it without verification. The appellant also challenged the misclassification allegation and lack of proper documentation. The respondent supported the Commissioner's decision, citing misdeclaration and undervaluation. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's order, noting that contemporaneous clearance values were available in the Indian Customs system, contradicting the Commissioner's claim. The Commissioner's reliance on quotations for determining value was deemed inconsistent, as he rejected the transacted value based on quotations but then used them to determine value. The appellant had supplied necessary information, including brand names and makes, but the adjudicating authority did not issue a mandatory notice under Rule 10A(2) to reject the declared value. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the need for a proper reevaluation of the case by the adjudicating authority.
|
