2015 (1) TMI 164 - HC - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - Imposition of penalty - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the impugned items are electronic scrap on the basis of the invoices of M/s.Canon Singapore raised in favour of M/s.Cimelia Singapore against the expert opinion of Chartered Engineer who has done the detailed examinations of the goods - Held that - there is no specific finding by the Tribunal as has been raised in the substantial question of law. All that the Tribunal has ordered is remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to redo the exercise after giving detailed analysis on the issues pointed out in paragraph 9 of the order. Hence, the substantial question of law does not requires to be answered in a case of open remand. All other findings of the Tribunal are not challenged. Accordingly, we find no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods declared as electronic scrap.
2. Misdeclaration of description and value of goods.
3. Reliance on Chartered Engineer's certificate for valuation.
4. Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the Commissioner for revaluation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of imported electronic scrap by a 100% Export Oriented Unit for recycling precious metals. The Commissioner of Customs alleged misdeclaration of description and value, leading to an order enhancing the value and imposing penalties. The importer contended that the goods were correctly declared as scrap based on invoices from the agent of the original manufacturer.

2. The Department relied on a Chartered Engineer's certificate to support their claim of higher valuation due to misdeclaration by the importer. The importer argued that the certificate lacked specific details on the condition and value of the imported machines, questioning its validity. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the certificate but found it lacking in crucial particulars for proper assessment.

3. The Tribunal, in its order, highlighted the deficiencies in the Chartered Engineer's certificate and directed the Commissioner to obtain a comprehensive certificate with complete particulars for accurate valuation of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough assessment to determine the true value of the imported items, especially in the absence of essential details in the initial certificate.

4. The Department appealed the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for revaluation, challenging the lack of a specific finding on the substantial question of law. The High Court, after hearing both parties, upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the matter required a redo by the Commissioner with detailed analysis as per the Tribunal's directions. The Court found no legal issue to address in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key legal aspects and procedural steps taken in the judgment, addressing the issues raised in the case regarding the valuation and misdeclaration of imported electronic scrap.