9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 252 - AT - CustomsUndervaluation recovery of undersigned agreement between assessee and foreign supplier - it confirmed the existence of a relationship between them enhancement of value is justified valuation u/r 8 of Customs Valuation Rules was righty done - reopening of concluded old case of similar machines imported in 2000 & 2003 by invoking larger period, is also justified as there was suppression of the fact of no sale transaction confiscation on ground of misdeclaration is also justified
Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of value of imported machines. 2. Confirmation of duty and interest. 3. Reopening of assessment for previous imports. 4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine. 5. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 6. Validity of unsigned agreement as evidence. 7. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner. 8. Request for re-export of goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Enhancement of Value of Imported Machines The Commissioner enhanced the value of the machines imported on 19-07-2004 from Rs. 18,06,031 to Rs. 56,43,848 under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Chartered Engineer's valuation of $121,875 was accepted over the declared value of $39,000 CIF. The Tribunal upheld this enhancement, noting that there was no sale transaction and the valuation was based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate, which was deemed reliable and in accordance with the Valuation Rules. 2. Confirmation of Duty and Interest The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 22,78,742 on the machines imported on 19-07-2004 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest under Section 28AB. The Tribunal upheld this confirmation, agreeing with the Commissioner's findings that the declared value was not acceptable due to the absence of a sale transaction. 3. Reopening of Assessment for Previous Imports The Commissioner reopened the assessment for machines imported on 20-11-2000, 20-12-2000, and 16-12-2003, enhancing the assessable value to Rs. 1,74,30,222 and confirming a differential duty of Rs. 62,65,657. The Tribunal upheld this reopening and enhancement, citing suppression of facts and the absence of a sale transaction for these imports as well. 4. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of all impugned goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 10,00,000, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Imposition of Penalties Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act Penalties were imposed on: - M/s. Sun Electronics Technologies Ltd.: Rs. 25,00,000 - Shri V.P. Soni, Director: Rs. 10,00,000 - Shri Sanjay Soni, Advisor/Consultant: Rs. 10,00,000 The Tribunal reduced these penalties to: - M/s. Sun Electronics Technologies Ltd.: Rs. 8,00,000 - Shri V.P. Soni, Director: Rs. 2,00,000 - Shri Sanjay Soni, Advisor/Consultant: Rs. 1,00,000 6. Validity of Unsigned Agreement as Evidence The appellants argued that the case was based on an unsigned agreement, which has no evidentiary value. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not rely solely on the unsigned agreement but on the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the absence of a sale transaction. The unsigned agreement was used to corroborate other findings. 7. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner The appellants contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the valuation under Central Excise. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not decided any Central Excise matters and that the valuation of the imported goods fell within his jurisdiction. 8. Request for Re-export of Goods The Commissioner rejected the appellants' request for re-export of the machines, suspecting an attempt to escape legal consequences. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the appellants' history of undervaluation and the timing of the re-export request. Conclusion The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order with modifications to the penalties and redemption fine. The valuation enhancement, duty confirmation, reopening of assessments, and confiscation were justified based on the absence of a sale transaction and the Chartered Engineer's valuation. The unsigned agreement, while not solely relied upon, supported the findings, and the Commissioner's jurisdiction was affirmed. The request for re-export was rightly denied.
|
