2013 (12) TMI 353 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Import of consignments of batteries and fluorescent tubes - Commissioner, after enhancing the value as proposed, ordered the goods to be confiscated and imposed redemption fine and penalty - Held that - variation between the landed cost based on value declared by the appellant and the sale price in the local market is very wide and is about 10 times in some cases. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant in their appeal memorandum. Their submission is that they have not paid any amount in excess of what has been declared in the Bills of Entry. We further notice that the appellants have admitted to the enhancement of the value at the time of investigation and cleared the goods after giving bank guarantee as directed by the Hon ble High Court - appellants have not made out a strong case for full waiver of differential duty involved especially when the goods have already been cleared and sold in the market. No financial hardship has also been pleaded except stating that they would be put to hardship if they were directed to deposit the penalty - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhanced value of imported consignments
2. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty
3. Request for waiver of differential duty and stay of recovery

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported batteries and fluorescent tubes with declared values that were significantly lower than the market value as ascertained by the Commissioner. The value of batteries was enhanced from Rs.3,66,630 to Rs.35,35,000, and the value of fluorescent tubes was enhanced from Rs.2,72,700 to Rs.16,36,200. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. The differential duty payable based on the redetermined value was Rs.36,25,855.

2. The appellant argued that they correctly declared the transaction value, did not pay excess amounts to suppliers, and challenged the reliance on opinions without seeing samples. The appellant had already provided a bank guarantee covering the differential duty. The Deputy Commissioner supported the Commissioner's findings, stating the market value was significantly higher than the declared value, and the appellant had accepted the value enhancement during the investigation.

3. The Tribunal noted the substantial discrepancy between declared values and market prices, with some prices being ten times higher in the local market. The appellant did not dispute this discrepancy but claimed they did not pay more than the declared value. The Tribunal found the appellant had admitted to the value enhancement during investigation and had already sold the goods in the market. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant did not present a strong case for a full waiver of the differential duty. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.18 lakhs within six weeks and maintain a bank guarantee for the remaining duty amount until the appeal's disposal. Upon compliance with the deposit, the Tribunal granted a waiver of predeposit for the balance of dues and stayed the recovery pending appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of values in imports, the consequences of discrepancies between declared and market values, and the Tribunal's discretion in determining the need for predeposit of duties based on the circumstances presented by the appellant.