2014 (11) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Toys imported from china - Imposition of penalty - Held that - appellant admitted to the undervaluation of the goods at the time of importation and informed the customs authorities that he has misdeclared the value of the goods to the extent of 50% of the actual value and this statement has not been retracted. The appellant subsequently also did not lead any evidence to show that the value accepted by him is not true and correct and the accepted value was on the higher side compared to contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods - It is a well settled position of law that admitted facts need not be proved as held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Govindasamy Raghupathy - 1997 (6) TMI 356 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In the present case, the appellant has not led any evidence to show that the value admitted by him is incorrect. Therefore, the adoption of the value as admitted by the appellant in the facts of the case cannot be faulted. Consequently, the appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability. Inasmuch as the value has been misdeclared, imposition of penalty is also sustainable in law - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Loading of value on imported toys
- Confirmation of duty demand
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant and the partner

Analysis:
1. Loading of Value on Imported Toys:
The appellant contested the loading of value on toys imported from China, arguing that the Revenue did not conduct an investigation but unilaterally determined the value. The appellant relied on the case of Orient Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, where it was held that under-invoicing charges without supporting evidence from contemporaneous imports are not legally sustainable. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant admitted to undervaluing the goods by 50% and did not provide evidence to refute the accepted value. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to prove that the accepted value was higher than contemporaneous imports, as evidenced in the Orient Enterprises case. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's decision based on the appellant's admission and lack of contradictory evidence.

2. Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The appellant's admission of undervaluation without subsequent evidence to challenge the accepted value led to the confirmation of duty demand. The Tribunal referenced the case of M.D. International v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, which established that when an importer admits undervaluation, the burden of proof shifts to the importer to provide contrary evidence. As the appellant did not present evidence to contest the admitted value, the duty demand confirmation was deemed lawful.

3. Imposition of Penalty on the Appellant and Partner:
Due to the misdeclaration of value by the appellant, the imposition of a penalty was considered legally justified. The Tribunal cited the principle that admitted facts do not require further proof, as established in the case of Govindasamy Raghupathy. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the admitted value, the penalty imposition was upheld as lawful. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed based on the above analysis.