2018 (11) TMI 1813 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Wooden Furniture - suppression of value - allegation that the weight of the furniture declared in the respective Bills of Entry/Packing List is less in comparison to the actual weight of the said goods - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the appellant had imported wooden furniture of different varieties meant to be used in bedrooms and hall etc. While importing the said goods, the appellant had declared the classification of the product, under Chapter 94038990 of CTA, 1975 which are assessable to duty as unit not by weight. Therefore, noticing excess weight at the time of physical verification of the import by the Customs authorities, could not in any manner change the transaction value disclosed in the proforma invoices, which has not been disputed by the Revenue. Thus, loading the invoice price prorata basis to the extent of excess weight of the furniture noticed during the physical examination is unsustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding imported Wooden Furniture
- Allegation of suppressed value leading to differential duty and confiscation
- Classification of goods under Chapter 94038900
- Discrepancy in weight of imported furniture
- Legal contention on loading invoice price based on excess weight
- Reference to relevant case laws

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal related to the import of Wooden Furniture, where the appellant declared the assessable value based on the transaction price mentioned in the proforma invoice by the overseas supplier. However, discrepancies were found in the weight declared in the Bills of Entry compared to the actual weight of the goods, leading to allegations of suppressed value, differential duty confirmation, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were declared based on unit-wise pricing in the invoices, not by weight, and that the furniture was classifiable under Chapter 94038900, with duty prescribed per piece, not by weight. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that loading the invoice price on a prorata basis due to excess weight was legally untenable.

3. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the discrepancy in the weight of the imported furniture as declared in the invoice. The authorities justified the loading of the invoice price based on the excess weight discovered during physical verification of the goods.

4. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had imported wooden furniture classified under Chapter 94038990, which attracts duty based on units, not weight. The Tribunal found that discrepancies in weight during physical verification should not alter the transaction value disclosed in the invoices, especially when undisputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed loading the invoice price on a prorata basis due to excess weight as legally unsustainable.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief as per the law. The decision was based on the legal principle that the transaction value should not be altered based on discrepancies in weight during physical examination, especially when the classification and duty calculation were based on units rather than weight.