2014 (10) TMI 912 - AT - Customs

confiscation - imported old and used photocopier - option to pay redemption fine - imposition of penalties - importation without license - contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade policy - valuation of consignment - enhancement of assessable value - identical issue raised in the case Katrina Deals vs. CC, New Delhi 2015 (7) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Held that - It is well settled that valuation has to be done based upon the evidence and not upon the doubts. The assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which have been the subject matter of various decisions of High Courts, in which it stands held that the said rules have to be followed striatum wise and the transaction value has to be first rejected by producing sufficient and tangible evidence - enhancement of value not required. Confiscatability of the imported machines or imposition of penalty on the allegation of violation of foreign trade policy not disputed - Redemption fine and penalty upheld but amount reduced. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported old and used photocopier without a license.
2. Enhancement of value of imported goods.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties.
4. Challenge of under-valuation allegation.
5. Reduction of quantum of redemption fine and penalty based on precedent decisions.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of confiscation of imported old and used photocopiers without a license. The lower authorities had confiscated the goods on the grounds of import without a license and violation of the Foreign Trade policy. The appellant was given the option to redeem the goods by paying a redemption fine set by the authorities, along with imposed penalties.

2. Regarding the enhancement of the value of imported goods, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the assessable value must be determined based on the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It was emphasized that valuation should be evidence-based and not on doubts. The Tribunal set aside the enhancement of value but upheld the confiscation and penalties imposed.

3. The issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalties was addressed by considering precedent decisions. The appellant challenged the under-valuation allegation but did not dispute the confiscatability of the goods or the penalties. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the assessed value and penalties to 5%, following the criteria established in previous decisions and a High Court ruling.

4. The appellant's advocate had challenged the under-valuation allegation but did not dispute the confiscation or penalties based on violation of the foreign trade policy. The Tribunal noted the reduction of redemption fine and penalties in similar cases and decided to reduce the redemption fine to 10% and penalties to 5% of the value of the imported goods.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals in a common order, setting aside the enhancement of value, upholding the confiscation and penalties, and reducing the redemption fine and penalties based on precedent decisions and a High Court ruling. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue involved and the reasoning behind the decision.