9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1 - AT - CustomsValuation of goods - valuation of 10 varieties of Integrated Circuits and 6 varieties of transistors imported under Bill of Entry dated 8.9.2003 - Held that - Assessable value cannot be determined on the basis of quotation. Quotations are merely indicative price having no relevance as to the Country of Origin, which is admittedly not mentioned on the quotation. With respect to the IC No. 0800HCN, (Sr. No. 2 of Annexure-B to show-cause notice), the Revenue has relied on the NIDB website, wherein the number of ICs are not reflected at all, whereas under the Bill of Entry, the Country of Origin is other than Japan. In the case of Bill of Entry No. 655048 relied upon by the Revenue, copy of the same have not been supplied to the appellant leading to violation of principles of natural justice and the finding is thus perverse. In another Bill of Entry as relied upon by the Revenue, the quantity is only 300 of M/s Shreeji, whereas the quantity imported by the appellant is 10,000 and there is also difference in Country of Origin. It is something different and/or short with respect to comparison adopted by the Revenue for the purpose of under-valuation. - Revenue has not discharged the burden to establish under-valuation as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. In this view of the matter, we reject the value adopted by the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported electronic components. 2. Allegation of under-valuation and mis-declaration. 3. Rejection of transaction value. 4. Determination of assessable value. 5. Imposition of penalties and confiscation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Imported Electronic Components: The core issue in the appeal was the valuation of 10 varieties of Integrated Circuits and 6 varieties of transistors imported under a Bill of Entry dated 8.9.2003. The Customs authorities enhanced the values of 8 out of 16 items and assessed the duty accordingly. The investigation confirmed that the goods matched the description and quantity declared, and the country of origin was as stated in the Bill of Entry. 2. Allegation of Under-Valuation and Mis-Declaration: The Revenue alleged under-valuation based on the fact that the Bill of Lading showed nil freight and insurance, suggesting these costs were borne by the supplier. It was also found that the importer, M/s Krunal Corporation, was a dummy entity used by another individual, Shri Mangilal Ranka, for importing the goods. The consignment was seized, and further investigation revealed that the goods were imported using the IEC code of M/s Krunal Corporation, with Shri Mangilal Ranka financing the import. 3. Rejection of Transaction Value: The Revenue rejected the declared transaction value, arguing that it was not the normal transaction price. They based this on quotations from dealers and contemporaneous imports, which showed higher prices for similar goods. The appellants contested this, arguing that quotations are not reliable evidence and that the declared value should be accepted as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. 4. Determination of Assessable Value: The Tribunal held that assessable value cannot be determined based on quotations, as they are merely indicative prices and do not reflect the country of origin. The Revenue's reliance on the NIDB website and other Bill of Entries was flawed due to differences in quantity and country of origin. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not discharged its burden to establish under-valuation as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 5. Imposition of Penalties and Confiscation: The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem on payment of a redemption fine. However, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, rejecting the value adopted by the Revenue and holding that the appellant was entitled to consequential relief. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant was also ordered to be released. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to justify the rejection of the declared transaction value and the subsequent re-assessment. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, providing relief to the appellant.
|
