Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (9) TMI 372 - AT - Customs

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of facts, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, limitation period

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. imported high tech oil exploration tools, declaring an assessable value lower than the actual value. The issue revolved around the valuation of the imported goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of facts, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, and the application of the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' argument that the value of the entire unit could not be represented by the value of individual items was not tenable. They determined that the Gross Book Value (GBV) shown in the Fixed Assets Report (FAR) was the assessable value, rejecting the argument for adopting the Net Book Value (NBV) due to depreciation. However, they acknowledged the appellants' right to claim depreciation on the imported used items.

Regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal upheld the extended period of limitation due to the appellants providing consolidated value for the imported unit while in other cases, they had provided values of individual items. This difference indicated a suppression of facts regarding the value of the imported goods to evade duty payment.

The Tribunal remanded the case for re-quantification of duty, considering depreciation, and left the imposition of penalty for fresh determination by the Commissioner. They upheld the confiscation of goods but directed the re-determination of the redemption fine after establishing the correct duty liability. The Commissioner was instructed to issue fresh orders after allowing the importers a chance to present details regarding the purchase dates of the imported items.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for a re-evaluation of duty, penalty determination, and redemption fine calculation based on the correct valuation and depreciation considerations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates