2010 (12) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Undervaluation - Misdeclaration - The appellants claimed assessment of these goods as component parts of photocopiers and filed Bill of Entry No.490522 dated 14.5.2003 with the customs authorities, accordingly - The Chartered Engineers subsequent to the inspection issued a report dated 13.6.2003 indicating that the items under reference are fairly complete photocopiers with few external parts missing - Consequent to the directions given by the High Court, the appellants arranged for inspection of the goods by M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd on 25.7.2003 - Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus - After the receipt of the report, the respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice and proceed further in accordance with law - Accordingly writ petitions are disposed of the appellants were only directed to get a report from M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai and to submit the same within a week of the Honrable High Courts order to the customs authorities - The major difference between the reports of two Chartered Engineers was that M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai could not reconfirm the model numbers - On comparison of the two Reports it thus appeared to emerge that the Report issued by M/s. Superintendence Company ofIndia(Pvt.) Ltd., Chennai was more specific in that the model numbers had been categorically identified with the help of a technical expert - The value assessed by M/s. Superintendence & Co., which was close to the evidence collected by the department for the full used second hand machine therefore appeared to be correct and reasonable Regarding misdeclaration - Honrable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Sanjay Chandiram 1995 (77) ELT 241 (SC) which held that Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 providing for acceptance of transaction value is not a rule of invariable application regardless of the circumstances - In cases of misdeclaration the irresistible conclusion would be that if the real value of the imported goods has not been shown in the invoices, then the declared value cannot be taken as the transaction value - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Valuation of imported goods.
3. Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Acceptance of Chartered Engineer's reports.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
- The appellants imported a consignment of photocopier parts/components and declared them as such in the Bill of Entry.
- Upon examination, the customs authorities, along with Chartered Engineers, found that the goods consisted mainly of 43 old and used sub-assemblies of photocopiers, which were fairly complete photocopiers with a few external parts missing.
- The original authority classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 9009 12 00 as incomplete photocopiers having the essential character of complete photocopiers.
- Both the lower and appellate authorities upheld this classification, rejecting the appellants' claim that the goods were parts/accessories of photocopiers under Tariff Item 90099900.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
- The appellants declared the value of the goods as US$ 4515 (C&F), while M/s. Superintendence Company India Ltd. appraised the value at US$ 30425 (FOB), and M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. valued the consignment at US$ 15050 (C&F).
- The show-cause notice proposed a value of US$ 27759 (CIF).
- The original authority determined the value at US$ 25919.35 (CIF) after allowing an abatement for missing components.
- The lower appellate authority upheld this valuation, and both authorities rejected the report of M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. in favor of the report by M/s. Superintendence Company of India Ltd., which was more specific and detailed.

3. Confiscation and Penalty under the Customs Act, 1962:
- The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the import of restricted items without a specific import license and misdeclaration of description and value.
- A redemption fine of Rs. 2.40 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 1.20 lakhs were imposed.
- The lower appellate authority upheld the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, noting that the goods were misdeclared and undervalued.
- The authorities justified the confiscation and penalties even without reference to the valuation aspect, as the import of old/used machinery without a specific import license itself warranted confiscation.

4. Acceptance of Chartered Engineer's Reports:
- The appellants were directed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court to get a report from M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. and submit it to the customs authorities.
- The customs authorities were not bound to accept this report and had the liberty to issue a show-cause notice and proceed according to law.
- The original authority compared the reports from M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. and M/s. Superintendence Company of India Ltd., finding the latter more reliable and specific.
- The original authority provided detailed reasons for rejecting the report of M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., citing inconsistencies and the lack of model number identification.
- The authorities concluded that the report by M/s. Superintendence Company of India Ltd. was more accurate and appropriate for determining the value and condition of the goods.

Conclusion:
- The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, confirming the classification, valuation, confiscation, and penalties imposed by the customs authorities.
- The authorities followed the directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and provided detailed justifications for their decisions, ensuring compliance with the law and protecting public revenue.