2018 (3) TMI 1779 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - silk fabrics - suppression of facts - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has observed that mere non-declaration of grammage in the bills of entry will not amount to willful mis-statement. On being questioned Learned Authorised Representative has not be able to show us any provision of law reflecting upon any obligation on the part of the importer to declare the grammage of the silk fabrics. In the absence of any legal obligation, we fully agree with the adjudicating authority that mere non-declaration will not amount to suppression or misstatement. It has to be kept in mind that it is not a case whether the importer misdeclared the wrong grammage of the silk fabrics, so as to attribute any mala fide to him. As such, we fully agree with the above findings of the Commissioner and find no infirmity in the same - Revenue s appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported silk fabrics based on grammage, applicability of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, willful misstatement, benefit to the assessee, extended period of demand, fine and penalty imposition.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue at hand concerned the valuation of imported silk fabrics based on their grammage. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner, which granted benefit to the assessee in seven bills of entries while confirming the demand in five bills of entries. The adjudicating authority had ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the non-declaration of grammage did not amount to willful misstatement, thus not invoking the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority relied on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld by the Supreme Court to support this decision. The Tribunal concurred with the adjudicating authority, emphasizing that there was no legal obligation for the importer to declare the grammage of the silk fabrics, and mere non-declaration did not constitute suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal found no mala fide intent on the part of the importer and upheld the Commissioner's findings, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This case underscores the importance of legal obligations in determining willful misstatement under customs law. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the absence of any obligation for the importer to declare the grammage of the imported silk fabrics, leading to the conclusion that non-declaration did not amount to suppression or misstatement. By aligning with the adjudicating authority's reasoning and emphasizing the lack of mala fide intent, the Tribunal upheld the decision to grant benefit to the assessee in seven bills of entries. The reliance on a precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, further strengthened the Tribunal's position in rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This judgment serves as a reminder of the nuanced considerations involved in customs valuation and the significance of legal obligations in determining liabilities under the Customs Act, 1962.