2013 (8) TMI 656 - AT - Customs

Valuation of Invoices - invoices were undervalued the shipment with an intent to evade Customs duty department issued show cause notice for demand of duty and confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine - Held that - The invoices admitted by the assessee to be undervalued with an intent to evade payment of duty the orders had not solely referred to the E-mail invoice - during the adjudication proceedings had been rightly held to be an afterthought and rightly rejected by the lower authorities in as much as no correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and supplier or any other evidence stand placed on record to substantiate the plea order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to be upheld decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Undervaluation of imported goods leading to evasion of Customs duty. Reliability of evidence based on an E-mail invoice.

The judgment pertains to a case where the appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 'Opal Ware' with a declared value of US $31549.92, which was later found to be undervalued. An investigation revealed a parallel invoice from the appellant's E-mail account showing the value as US $37494.77. The authorized representative admitted to undervaluation with an intent to evade Customs duty and expressed willingness to pay the differential duty. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of duty demand, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty. The appeal challenging these decisions was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal), prompting the present appeal.

The main contention raised by the appellant was the reliance on the E-mail invoice as evidence, arguing that it should not be considered reliable evidence. The appellant's advocate cited a previous Tribunal case to support this argument. However, the Tribunal noted that the impugned orders did not solely rely on the E-mail invoice. The appellant had admitted to undervaluation during the investigation, with a clear statement and willingness to pay the differential duty. The Tribunal found no retraction of this admission and deemed the subsequent defense by the appellant as an afterthought, lacking any supporting evidence. The absence of any proof of agreement to reduce the price indicated in the E-mail invoice further strengthened the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order, rejecting the appellant's appeal.

The judgment was pronounced on 26.04.2013 by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, with the appeal being dismissed based on the findings regarding undervaluation of imported goods and the reliability of the E-mail invoice as evidence in the case of evasion of Customs duty.