2007 (6) TMI 22 - AT - Customs

Valuation(Custom) Department contended that the declared value of imported good by the appellant is low with intent to evade payment and accordingly fine and penalty imposed on him Held that the department contention is correct

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared transaction value under Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988.
2. Determination of correct FOB value.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalties on the importer and the Customs House Agent (CHA).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Declared Transaction Value:
The Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared transaction value of the imported "SHINOHARA 52 IV heavy duty sheet fed four colour straight printing offset press" under Rules 4(2) and 10A of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 (CVR). The declared value was deemed not genuine, and an investigation was initiated. The importer, M/s. Saffire Lithographers Limited, failed to substantiate the declared value with supporting documents or a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner found that the declared value did not reflect a sale in the ordinary course of international trade under fully competitive conditions, involving abnormal discounts and special discounts limited to exclusive agents. The Tribunal upheld this rejection, noting that the transaction value must conform to the ordinary competitive price in international trade.

2. Determination of Correct FOB Value:
The Commissioner determined the FOB value of the imported goods to be Rs. 139.68 lakhs, based on a Chartered Engineer's estimate and internet data indicating a higher price. The importer did not challenge the veracity of this internet price. The Tribunal observed that the price declared for the machine was significantly low compared to its normal FOB value for sale in international trade. The Commissioner's use of Rule 8 of the CVR to determine the value, after rejecting the transaction value, was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted that the supplier had allowed a significant discount to the importer, who was the sole distributor in India.

3. Confiscation of Goods:
Under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, the goods were confiscated for misdeclaration of value with the intent to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that the importer had misdeclared the value to evade customs duty. The Commissioner's order to offer an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was also upheld.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rs. 50,000 on the CHA, M/s. Adarsh Shipping and Services. The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the importer, finding that the misdeclaration was intentional to evade duty. However, the penalty on the CHA was set aside. The Tribunal found that the CHA had filed the Bill of Entry based on documents provided by the importer and could not be expected to know the customs value of all goods it helps clear. The finding of abetment by the CHA was deemed speculative and not based on evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order in rejecting the declared transaction value, determining the correct FOB value, confiscating the goods, and imposing penalties on the importer. However, the penalty on the CHA was set aside due to lack of evidence of their involvement in the undervaluation. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate declaration and substantiation of transaction values in customs proceedings.

← Previous Next →