2015 (8) TMI 1114 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhancement in CIF value of imported goods - Held that - At the time of adjudication by the primary adjudicating authority, the appellant-assessee had waived the Show Cause Notice. Waiver of Show Cause Notice obviously means that the assessee had willingly given up its right for full observance of the principles of natural Justice. Further, we find that three dates were fixed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for personal hearing but the appellant did not appear for personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). Even so, we find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has discussed the basis of enhancement of value in accordance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 as also the basis for holding the imported goods to be in the restricted category. It is also seen that the redemption fine was imposed in accordance with the market price obtained as a result of market inquiry . The Commissioner (Appeals) has also found that the appellant was a repeat offender and had imported the impugned goods in violation of the import and export policy and also indulged in under-valuation and therefore enhanced the penalty. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting appellate intervention. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal upholding enhancement of CIF value of imported goods and modified penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed against Orders-in-Appeal that upheld the enhancement of the CIF value of imported goods and modified the penalty imposition. The primary adjudicating authority had found the imported goods to be undervalued and imported in violation of import-export policy. The appellant contended that the value was correctly declared, questioned the market inquiry basis for value enhancement, and asserted that the goods were freely importable. Revenue argued that profit margin calculation was incorrect, leading to inadequate fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had fixed three dates for a personal hearing, but the appellant did not appear. Despite this, the Order-in-Appeal discussed the basis for value enhancement and categorization of goods as restricted, following Customs Valuation Rules. The redemption fine was imposed based on market inquiry results. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's repeat offenses, leading to penalty enhancement. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, dismissing the appeals.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to natural justice principles, as the appellant had waived the Show Cause Notice, relinquishing the right for full observance of such principles. It also emphasizes the significance of personal hearings, as the appellant's absence during scheduled hearings was noted. The decision underscores the role of market inquiry in determining values and penalties, as evidenced by the imposition of redemption fine based on market prices. Moreover, the judgment underscores the consequences of repeat offenses, as the appellant's history of violations contributed to penalty enhancement. Overall, the Tribunal's decision underscores the need for procedural compliance, thorough examination of valuation methods, and consideration of past conduct in customs-related matters.