2013 (8) TMI 545 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Nature of goods - Whether the goods were of inferior quality - Revenue was of the view that Synthetic Industrial Diamond Powder imported by the appellant was not proved to be of inferior quality Held that - Materials on record do no suggest to entertain plea of respondent as to inferior quantity when burden of proof was not discharged by it - no evidence was adduced by the assessee to support its claim of proper declaration of description and value of export - there was a clear admission of under valuation as recorded by Adjudicating Authority at the time of recording of statement u/s 108 It was elementary principle of law that who had made averment had to prove its veracity decided in favour of revenue.

Issues:
1. Proper declaration of description and value of the imported goods.
2. Allegation of inferior quality of Synthetic Industrial Diamond Powder.
3. Burden of proof on the respondent regarding the plea of inferior quality.
4. Admission of undervaluation by the respondent.
5. Acceptance of baseless plea causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the issue of the proper declaration of description and value of the imported goods. The Revenue contended that the Synthetic Industrial Diamond Powder imported was not proven to be of inferior quality as claimed by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide evidence supporting its claim, and the Revenue argued that the proper value should have been determined based on contemporaneous imports supported by a Bill of Entry. It was discovered that both the goods were manufactured by the same company in China. The appellate authority was criticized for accepting the Respondent's baseless plea, which was deemed to be prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

2. The second issue concerns the allegation of inferior quality of the imported goods. Despite the lack of evidence from the Respondent demonstrating that the goods were of inferior quality and lower value, the appellate order was supported only on behalf of the Respondent. The absence of proof regarding the quality and value of the imported goods worked against the Respondent's case.

3. The judgment addresses the burden of proof on the Respondent regarding the plea of inferior quality. The Adjudicating Authority had previously recorded an admission of undervaluation by the Respondent during the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The materials on record did not support the Respondent's claim of inferior quality, emphasizing the principle that the party making an averment must prove its validity without shifting the burden to the other side. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed due to the Respondent's failure to discharge the burden of proof.

4. An important aspect highlighted in the judgment is the admission of undervaluation by the Respondent. The acknowledgment of undervaluation by the Respondent, as recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, played a significant role in the decision. This admission, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting the plea of inferior quality, weakened the Respondent's position in the case.

5. Lastly, the judgment touches upon the acceptance of a baseless plea causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. The appellate authority was criticized for accepting the Respondent's unsubstantiated claim of inferior quality without proper evidence. This acceptance was deemed detrimental to the Revenue's interests, leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal in the case.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of providing evidence to substantiate claims in customs cases, emphasizing the burden of proof on the parties involved and the consequences of accepting baseless pleas.

← Previous Next →