2014 (10) TMI 842 - AT - Customs

Mid-declaration of value Determination of assessable value Commissioner arrived at finding of mis-declaration of goods and consequently, mis-declaration of value and enhanced declared price of steel wheels, by referring to contemporaneous bills of entries In addition, commissioner confiscated goods with redemption fine and has imposed penalty upon appellant Appellant alleged that there were other contemporaneous evidences at lower value still Commissioner adopted higher value Held that - Commissioner has adopted value based upon bill of entry where quantity imported was 720 pieces Though quantity in said bill of entry is against 720 pieces and the appellant s import of higher number of pieces i.e. 2880 which may further effect assessable value, but appellant is not pressing on this ground and prays for adopting lower value of ₹ 1219.32 per piece only Therefore assessable value of ₹ 1219.32 per piece is correct assessable value As evidence of margin of profit is not available therefore by adopting criteria of differential duty, quantum of redemption fine reduced Penalty amount also brought down Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, enhancement of assessable value, redemption fine, penalty imposition

Misdeclaration of Goods and Enhancement of Assessable Value:
The Commissioner found misdeclaration of goods and enhanced the declared price of steel wheels based on contemporaneous bills of entries. The appellant did not contest the misdeclaration but argued that the assessable value should be determined based on the lowest price among contemporaneous evidences, citing Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant claimed a lower price of &8377; 1219.32 per piece, while the Commissioner had set it at &8377; 1355.82 per piece. The tribunal analyzed the rules and evidence, concluding that the correct assessable value was &8377; 1219.32 per piece, considering the quantity imported and other values presented.

Redemption Fine:
The appellant raised concerns about the redemption fine being imposed without considering the margin of profit. The tribunal acknowledged the lack of evidence regarding profit margin but reduced the redemption fine from &8377; 9 lakhs to &8377; 6 lakhs based on the differential duty amount of approximately &8377; 6 lakhs. The decision was made by applying the criteria of differential duty to determine the appropriate redemption fine amount.

Penalty Imposition:
Regarding the penalty, the appellant argued that increasing the penalty from &8377; 1 lakh to &8377; 3 lakhs in de novo proceedings was unjust, as the initial penalty amount was lower. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the penalty imposed in the first adjudication could not be enhanced in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the penalty amount was reduced to the original &8377; 1 lakh.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments on the assessable value, redemption fine, and penalty imposition, thereby adjusting the values and penalties in favor of the appellant. The appeal was disposed of with the revised terms set by the tribunal.