2015 (10) TMI 759 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods declaration of import as Diethyl Hexyl Pthalate (DEHP) instead of Di-Octyl Pthalate (DOP) Demand of differential duty levy of penalties Held that - adjudicating authority has come to finding that DEHP and DOP are same product and therefore declared assessable in Bill of Entry is liable to be rejected To hold appellant guilty of mis-declaration on ground that it did not mention in Bill of Entry all synomys of impugned goods is completely devoid of logic, reason, rationale and legal basis No requirement under Customs law that all synonyms of goods imported must be declared failing which it will be tantamount to mis-declaration Indeed in case of CC, New Delhi Vs. Vee Kay Polycoats Ltd. 2013 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT NEW DELHI tribunal held that technical literature shows that DOP and DEHP are used interchangeably and that contention of manufacturer of products and importer cannot be brushed aside that products were different in quality and price Impugned order not found sustainable and therefore same is set aside Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand on imported goods declared as DEHP
2. Allegation of mis-declaration and undervaluation of goods
3. Discrepancy between DEHP and DOP classification
4. Provisional release of goods and subsequent rejection of transaction value

Analysis:

1. The case involved appeals against a differential duty demand imposed on imported goods declared as Diethyl Hexyl Pthalate (DEHP). The appellant imported 320 MT but filed Bill of Entry for only 80 MT, leading to allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation.

2. The primary adjudicating authority concluded that DEHP and Di-Octyl Pthalate (DOP) possess similar characteristics and can be used interchangeably. It was observed that there was a conscious effort to exploit the decline in DEHP trading by mis-declaring the goods as DOP to undervalue them.

3. The appellant contended that there was no evidence of under-valuation and argued that the adjudicating authority did not consider the quality of the product while rejecting the transaction value. The appellant cited a CESTAT judgment highlighting the differences between DEHP and DOP, emphasizing that they are different products despite some similarities.

4. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's reasoning flawed, stating that the mere similarity between DEHP and DOP does not prove mis-declaration. The Tribunal rejected the argument that failure to declare all synonyms of imported goods amounts to mis-declaration, emphasizing that Customs law does not mandate such disclosure. Additionally, the provisional release condition and subsequent rejection of transaction value were deemed unjustified.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The decision was based on the lack of evidentiary basis for mis-declaration, the absence of legal requirement to declare all synonyms, and the failure to consider the quality aspect in rejecting the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized the need for logical and legal reasoning in customs valuation cases.