2015 (8) TMI 1119 - SC - Customs

Goods mis-declared to avoid duty import of electronic components/parts - Commissioner in his order, which proved that what was, in fact, imported was complete sets of audio systems in dis-assembled conditions with a view to evade custom duties. - Tribunal decided the issue in favor of assessee Held that - Very material aspect which is glossed over by Tribunal is that technicians who had inspected goods were able to assemble systems from parts imported by respondent and make it functional Material produced by Department clearly proves that inadequate and wrong descriptions were given in import documents which gave right to Revenue to correctly assess goods Transaction value, as disclosed by importers, was doubtful and was rightly rejected by adjudicating authority Tribunal committed grave error in ignoring these facts Therefore order of tribunal set aside, while restoring order of Commissioner Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Misdeclaration of goods and under-invoicing.
3. Clubbing of consignments and re-determination of value.
4. Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Validity of the Tribunal's reliance on a previous case.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The customs authorities observed that the imported consignments, declared as various electronic components/parts, were actually complete sets of audio systems in disassembled condition. Technicians from Thomson India and Philips India assembled the systems from the imported parts, confirming that all necessary components, including screws, were imported. The Show Cause Notice stated that the goods should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8527.21, as they were complete units of Car Cassette Players and Five-in-One Music Systems, despite being declared as parts/components.

2. Misdeclaration of Goods and Under-Invoicing:
An intelligence report indicated that certain traders were importing electronic goods like CD/VCD Hi-Fi Systems and Car Cassette Players under the guise of electronic components, misdeclaring descriptions and under-invoicing the goods. The investigation revealed that the importers, M/s. Saumya Marketing (SM) and M/s. Mega Enterprises (ME), were merely fronts for the actual owner, who admitted to importing complete functional units in Semi-Knocked Down (SKD) condition to evade customs duties. The Show Cause Notice alleged deliberate misdeclaration and under-invoicing, corroborated by the same supplier, vessel, shipment date, and serially numbered invoices.

3. Clubbing of Consignments and Re-Determination of Value:
The customs authorities proposed clubbing the consignments imported under three Bills of Entry and treating them as complete units of 2189 systems. The declared value was rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and re-determined under Rule 8 as Rs. 89,09,602, with a differential duty of Rs. 37,95,206. The Commissioner of Customs upheld this re-determination, citing the respondents' deliberate import of complete systems disguised as parts/components to avoid duty.

4. Confiscation and Penalty under the Customs Act, 1962:
The imported goods were deemed liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to misdeclaration. Penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act: Rs. 5,00,000 on respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,00,000 each on respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Commissioner found that the respondents had contravened Section 46 of the Act by misdeclaring the goods' description and value, rendering them liable for confiscation and penalties.

5. Validity of the Tribunal's Reliance on a Previous Case:
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, relying on its decision in Sony India Ltd. Vs. CC, ICD, New Delhi, which dealt with separate importers filing separate Bills of Entry. The Tribunal ruled that the goods could not be considered as complete units and could not be confiscated under Section 111(m). The Supreme Court, however, found that the Tribunal erred by not considering the specific facts of this case, which involved sham firms and clear evidence of importing complete systems in disassembled condition. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Sony India Ltd., noting the presence of fraud and subterfuge, aligning it more with the case of Phoenix International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal's order and restoring the Commissioner's order. The Court emphasized the substantial evidence of misdeclaration and fraud, validating the reclassification, re-determination of value, confiscation, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's reliance on Sony India Ltd. was deemed inappropriate given the specific facts and evidence of fraud in this case.

← Previous Next →