2015 (11) TMI 440 - SC - Customs

Undervaluation of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that - There is a detailed and elaborate discussion on various aspects and after taking the material that was placed on record into consideration, a finding of fact is arrived at that the goods in question were in fact the components and not the complete set of television. We entirely agree with the majority decision of the Tribunal and do not find that this is a fit case for interference. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as components instead of complete television.
2. Disagreement between Adjudicating Authority and Department regarding the nature of imported goods.
3. Appeal challenging Adjudicating Authority's decision filed before CESTAT.
4. Disagreement between two-member Bench leading to reference to third member.
5. Third member's decision confirming that the goods were components and not undervalued.
6. Supreme Court's review of the Tribunal's decision and dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the respondents imported components of television but were accused by the Department of actually importing complete televisions, leading to misdeclaration and undervaluation. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the respondents' explanation and dropped the duty demand. However, the Department challenged this decision, initiating the legal proceedings.

2. The disagreement between the Adjudicating Authority and the Department prompted an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Initially, the two-member Bench had conflicting opinions, necessitating the matter to be referred to a third member for resolution.

3. The third member of CESTAT concluded that the imported goods were indeed components and not undervalued, thereby upholding the respondents' position. The Supreme Court noted the detailed discussion and evidence considered by the Tribunal in reaching this decision.

4. Upon review, the Supreme Court concurred with the majority decision of the Tribunal, emphasizing that the goods in question were correctly classified as components and not complete televisions. The Court found no grounds for interference and subsequently dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's ruling.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the imported goods were rightfully classified as components, not complete televisions, thereby resolving the dispute in favor of the respondents.