2014 (9) TMI 991 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of Value of imported goods Adjudicating authority confirmed customs duty demand along with interest thereon apart from imposing equivalent amount of penalty as importer grossly mis-declared value of imports Held that - Commission Agent has admitted that data contained in computer printouts reflect correct transaction values in respect of imports made by appellant These statements have not been retracted at any point of time Transaction values admitted in confessional statements of importer and commission agent can straightaway be adopted for determination of value which escaped assessment and for demand of differential duty liability Therefore no fault can be found if assessable value is redetermined on basis of values declared in export declarations and duty liability determined accordingly Thus differential duty liability in respect of B/Es is clearly sustainable in law. As appellant has indulged in misdeclaration of values in respect of number of consignments making goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) provisions of Section 114A are attracted and therefore imposition of equivalent amount of penalty is justified Considering significant amount of duty evaded imposition of penalty is justified and amount of penalty imposed cannot be said to be excessive In view of factual and legal analysis no infirmity in impugned order Decided against Assesse.

Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Reliance on computer printouts and statements for valuation.
3. Use of export declarations for determining transaction value.
4. Misdeclaration of grades and quantities of imported goods.
5. Calculation of differential duty and exchange rates.
6. Imposition of penalties on the importer and commission agent.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The case involves M/s. Sangeeta Metal (India) importing 21 consignments of stainless steel coils/sheets from M/s. Dai Ichi, USA, and grossly mis-declaring the value of imports. The customs duty demand of Rs. 1,40,41,018.42 was confirmed along with equivalent penalties imposed on the importer and involved parties.

2. Reliance on Computer Printouts and Statements for Valuation:
The adjudicating authority relied on computer printouts retrieved from Goodluck Metal Corporation, which showed the actual transaction values. These values were corroborated by the statements of Shri Arun Kalidas Shah and Shri Amulakh Vardichand Shah, who admitted the undervaluation. The Tribunal upheld this reliance, stating that confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are valid evidence, as supported by precedents like Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collector of Central Excise.

3. Use of Export Declarations for Determining Transaction Value:
For 8 consignments where no data was available from the computer printouts, the export declarations made at the port of export were used. The Tribunal supported this method, referencing decisions such as Weston Components Ltd. and Orson Electronics, which allow rejection of declared transaction values if higher prices are indicated in export declarations. The Tribunal found no fault in redetermining the assessable value based on these declarations.

4. Misdeclaration of Grades and Quantities of Imported Goods:
The appellant argued for adjustments due to grade variations between export declarations and invoices. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the goods were directly consigned to India without any intermediate handling. The Tribunal inferred that the appellant misdeclared both value and grade, dismissing the plea for adjustments.

5. Calculation of Differential Duty and Exchange Rates:
The appellant contested the exchange rates and quantity calculations used in determining the duty demand. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice provided detailed notifications for exchange rates and upheld the calculations as accurate. The Tribunal dismissed the argument regarding incorrect exchange rates and quantities.

6. Imposition of Penalties on the Importer and Commission Agent:
The Tribunal justified the penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act due to the significant duty evasion and active involvement of the parties in misdeclaration. The penalties imposed on the importer and commission agent were deemed appropriate, referencing the liability to confiscation principle established in Dadha Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no infirmity in the adjudicating authority's order. The factual and legal analysis supported the customs duty demand, valuation methods, and penalties imposed. The appeals were deemed devoid of merits, and the order was upheld.

← Previous Next →