9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Undervaluation of imported goods, differential duty, penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
Undervaluation of goods: The appellant, engaged in import and sale of "opal glassware," faced allegations of undervaluation after an investigation by the DRI. The lower authorities concluded that there was mis-declaration of the value of goods based on statements by the Managing Partner, leading to a show cause notice for demanding differential duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. Appellant's arguments: The appellant contested the show cause notice, arguing that the prices agreed and billed by the foreign supplier were negotiated for market penetration, with no evidence of transmitting amounts more than declared in the invoices. They cited normal commercial transactions and submitted evidence of contemporaneous imports to support their case. Revenue's submission: The revenue contended that extensive investigation supported the undervaluation claims, emphasizing the managing partner's statement about declaring a lower value for customs duty purposes. They highlighted the lack of production of bills of entry and questioned the authenticity of contemporaneous import evidence. Tribunal's findings: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Adjudicating Authority's order, particularly the reliance on the managing partner's statement without rejecting the transaction value. They criticized the dismissal of evidence and lack of consideration for appellant's explanations. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper appreciation of evidence and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh review, stressing the importance of a speaking order and due consideration of all evidence presented. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing a reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority after proper appreciation of evidence and granting the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
|
