2013 (9) TMI 29 - AT - Customs

Undervaluation of imported goods - import at very low price - Import of footwear, Socks, Watch Battery, Baby Optical Frame etc, - Confiscation u/s 111(d) and 111(m) redemption fine u/s 125 penalty u/s 112 power to enhance the value in terms of the provision of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. - matching of the value in terms of Country of original, time of import, quality of goods and quantity of goods. Dissenting judgement matter referred to larger bench.

Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Misdeclaration of country of origin.
3. Applicability of NIDB data for valuation.
4. Confiscation and penalties imposed.
5. Rejection of invoice value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules.
6. Enhancement of value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules.
7. Alleged stock-lot purchase defense.
8. Tribunal's adherence to precedents and case laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was the undervaluation of imported goods, including ladies and gents footwear, socks, watch batteries, and baby optical frames. The declared value was Rs. 9,92,573/- while the reassessed value based on NIDB data was Rs. 68,59,210/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value under Rule 12 and reassessed it under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules.

2. Misdeclaration of Country of Origin:
During the examination, it was found that the declared country of origin was China, but some goods, especially batteries, were branded as Maxell/Sony and made in Japan. This misdeclaration was a significant factor in the undervaluation case.

3. Applicability of NIDB Data for Valuation:
The authorities enhanced the value based on NIDB data. However, the Tribunal noted that for adopting the value of other imported goods, they must match in terms of country of origin, time of import, quality, and quantity of goods. The Tribunal found that no such comparison was made, and the appellant's claim of stock-lot purchase was not rebutted by the Revenue with evidence.

4. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed:
The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 13,72,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,86,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and reassessment but reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,43,000/-.

5. Rejection of Invoice Value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules:
The invoice value was rejected under Rule 12, and the reassessment was done under Rule 9. The Tribunal noted that no evidence was produced to reject the invoice value apart from the NIDB data. There was no allegation or evidence of extra payment to the foreign supplier beyond the invoice value.

6. Enhancement of Value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules:
The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to uphold the enhanced value based on NIDB data alone, as there was no evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

7. Alleged Stock-lot Purchase Defense:
The appellant claimed the goods were purchased on a stock-lot basis, which was not rebutted by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the plea of stock-lot purchase stood unchallenged, and no evidence was provided to the contrary.

8. Tribunal's Adherence to Precedents and Case Laws:
The Tribunal referred to several case laws cited by the appellant, including Sellers Men vs. CC, Crystal Dot Scan P. Ltd., and Jai Industries vs. CC, which supported the appellant's case. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not consider these precedents adequately.

Separate Judgment by Technical Member:
The Technical Member disagreed with the Judicial Member's decision to allow the appeal. The Technical Member emphasized that the undervaluation was evident, especially for watch batteries, where the declared value was significantly lower than the contemporaneous import prices. The Technical Member upheld the enhanced value for batteries but agreed to give the benefit of doubt for other items like footwear, socks, and baby optical frames.

Point of Difference:
The difference in opinion between the Judicial and Technical Members was whether the appeal should be allowed entirely (Judicial Member) or rejected in respect of watch batteries (Technical Member). The registry was directed to take necessary steps to resolve this difference.

← Previous Next →