2011 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Customs

Import of goods - concessional rate of duty - the appellant does not dispute the finding of mis-declaration of description of the goods. However he submitted that the value adopted by the Commissioner on the basis of one contemporaneous bill of entry is not justified inasmuch as there are many other bills of entry showing the lesser assessable value in respect of the same goods. However he fairly agrees that the attention of the adjudicating authority could not be drawn to the said bills of entry as they had waived the show cause notice and the fact that the value would be enhanced was never brought to the notice of the appellant. remanded the matter for re-consideration of the value aspect we would also expect the Commissioner to consider the above point of re-quantification of CVD on the basis of MRP. Accordingly redemption fine and penalty would be re-arrived by him depending upon the outcome of the value aspect.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Classification of goods, Value determination, CVD calculation

Mis-declaration of goods:
The appellants imported goods declared as E-Coat steel wheel of harvester combine under customs tariff heading 8433.90 for concessional duty rates. However, upon examination, the goods were identified as steel wheel rims for trailers falling under 8716.9010, attracting a higher duty rate. The Revenue alleged mis-declaration and proposed duty confirmation. The Commissioner upheld the mis-declaration charge, increased the value from Rs.29 lakhs to Rs.39 lakhs, confirmed duty, imposed penalties, and allowed redemption on payment of a fine.

Classification of goods:
The Commissioner based the mis-declaration on a bill of entry showing identical steel wheel rims. The appellant acknowledged the mis-declaration but argued that other bills of entry indicated lower assessable values, which were not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority due to the waiver of the show cause notice. The tribunal set aside the order on value and remanded the matter for re-adjudication considering the other bills of entry.

Value determination:
The appellant contested the value adopted by the Commissioner, citing discrepancies with other bills of entry. The tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-examine the value issue, taking into account the appellant's evidence from additional bills of entry. The value reassessment would impact the redemption fine and penalty amounts.

CVD calculation:
The appellant argued that the CVD should be based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs.1900 per rim, different from the assessable value used by the adjudicating authority. While agreeing on the MRP, the appellant requested a re-calculation of CVD based on MRP. The tribunal instructed the Commissioner to reconsider the CVD calculation in light of the value reassessment, which would also affect the redemption fine and penalty amounts.

In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the case for further consideration on the value, CVD calculation, and related penalty aspects.