2008 (6) TMI 452 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of imported electronic goods, rejection of transaction value, enhancement of assessable value, interception of consignment, imposition of fine and penalty, violation of notification on country of origin, confiscation of goods.

Assessment of imported goods:
The appellants imported electronic goods with a declared value, which was enhanced by the appraising group. The assessable value was further increased by the Commissioner based on a market quotation, leading to additional duty payment by the appellants.

Rejection of transaction value:
Appellants argued that rejection of transaction value based on a domestic market quotation is invalid. They cited legal precedents emphasizing the burden of proof on the Department to establish undervaluation through evidence or contemporaneous imports of identical goods.

Enhancement of assessable value:
The Tribunal set aside the enhancement based on a market quotation but upheld the increase derived from contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The Tribunal found the enhancement justified in the latter case.

Violation of notification on country of origin:
The appellants contested the confiscation of goods due to alleged misdeclaration of country of origin. They argued that misdeclaration alone does not warrant confiscation and challenged the Department's interpretation of the notification on country of origin.

Imposition of fine and penalty:
The Tribunal ruled against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, citing reasons provided by the appellants related to the alleged violations. The confiscation of goods and associated penalties were set aside.

Procedural aspects:
The Tribunal clarified that reassessment of goods is permissible if fresh evidence warrants it, especially if the goods are still in the custody of the Department. The procedure under Section 129D of the Customs Act was deemed unnecessary in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the Commissioner's order by setting aside certain enhancements and penalties. The decision was pronounced on 25-6-2008 in court.