2019 (2) TMI 1765 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - quartz stone (artificial marble slabs - over-valuation of price of goods - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - It is seen from the documents that the shipment of goods, priced at US 15/sq. metre, had been contracted for before the notification prescribing a threshold for free importability of artificial marble slabs came into force - the licensing restrictions were applicable only to goods that had been contracted, and paid for, after the said notification came into force. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Import of quartz stone (artificial marble slabs) below the prescribed threshold value, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, assessable value, applicability of licensing restrictions, advance payment before notification date.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a case concerning the import of quartz stone (artificial marble slabs) by M/s. K. Italian against an order dated 7th March, 2011. The consignment, valued at US $ 8640, was below the prescribed threshold value of US $ 50/sq. metre for free importability. Consequently, the goods were confiscated but offered for redemption on payment of a fine of &8377; 3,50,000 and a penalty of &8377; 1,50,000, with an enhanced assessable value. The impugned order upheld the original authority's decision but reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 2,50,000 and the penalty to &8377; 1,00,000.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, emphasizing that the importer's advance payment before the notification date should entitle them to duty-free import. The appellant argued that the goods were imported before the notification prescribing the threshold for free importability came into effect. The remittance, proforma invoice, and sales contract requiring 100% advance payment were all dated before the notification, with the goods shipped prior to the notification date.

The documents revealed that the goods were contracted and paid for before the notification's enforcement, indicating that the licensing restrictions should only apply to goods contracted and paid for post-notification. In line with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the licensing restrictions were not applicable in this case due to the advance payment made before the notification date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the timing of the advance payment and contract for the imported goods in relation to the enforcement of the notification prescribing the threshold for free importability. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the applicability of licensing restrictions to goods contracted and paid for after the notification date, as per legal precedent.