2014 (1) TMI 476 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Penalty u/s 114 - Held that - Investigation revealed that supplier s representative Shri Ravi Vaswani was in intimate connection with one Shri Ramesh Chander Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Alfa Exports & Imports of New Delhi, who disclosed to the appellant s representative that only 50% of the actual value is disclosed in the import invoices and rest of the 50% value is paid in cash through one Shri D.P. Singh, who acted as a conduit in the deal. It was also brought to record that one Shri Gautam V. Jain of the appellant s firm met Shri Ravi Vaswani, supplier s representative. So also investigation brought out that similar goods imported by M/s. Adarsh Impex and M/s. Asian Impex, disclosed the declared value to the extent of double the value declared by the appellant. On specific verification, it was found that identical goods which were common in nature were imported by both these importers including the appellant. When there was no distinction in the goods found, the authority rejected the plea of second quality with less clarity. Detailed description apparent from the adjudicating order in paras 9, 10 & 11 compelled to enhance the value to the extent adjudicated - misdeclaration in the value of import called for enhancement. The appellant also failed to produce any technical report before authorities below as to inferior quality of the goods. Nothing was proved that supplier of the goods was different from M/s. Ocean Sasaki Glass Co. Ltd. The statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 remained undisturbed. In absence of contrary evidence led by appellant, there is no scope for interference to the findings and conclusions of the authorities below - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of declared value in Bill of Entry.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and duty.
3. Challenge to the order-in-appeal.
4. Comparison of imported goods and misdeclaration of value.
5. Evidence of under-valuation and misdeclaration.
6. Nature, quality, and description of imported goods.
7. Confirmation of findings by lower authorities.
8. Failure to produce technical report and rebut evidences.

Issue 1: The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value in two Bill of Entries and assessed the value at a higher amount, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and duty. The appellant challenged this assessment, arguing that the goods were of second quality and not comparable to other imports. However, the Revenue contended that the value was misdeclared, and the assessment was justified despite the difference in import timings.

Issue 2: The appellant's appeal to the Tribunal arose from the order-in-appeal that upheld the confiscation, fine, duty, and penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The appellant argued against the confiscation and penalty, claiming that the goods were of lower quality and the penalty was unwarranted. The Revenue maintained that the misdeclaration of value warranted the imposed penalties.

Issue 3: The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the records. The investigation revealed an intimate connection between the supplier's representative and other importers, indicating under-valuation practices. The adjudicating authority compared the imported goods, finding no distinction and justifying the enhanced value assessment. The Tribunal upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities on the nature and quality of the goods.

Issue 4: The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the inferior quality of the goods or a technical report. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to prove differences in the imported goods or the supplier's identity. The intimate connection between the appellant and the supplier's representative remained unchallenged, leading to the dismissal of the appeal except for waiving the redemption fine due to the unavailability of the goods for confiscation.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence of misdeclaration, the comparative analysis of imported goods, and the lack of rebuttal to the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal was dismissed, except for the limited relief granted regarding the redemption fine.