Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (6) TMI 67 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of value in the import of PU Leather Cloth.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Assessment of assessable value based on interchange of fabric rolls and NIDB data.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Mis-declaration of value in the import of PU Leather Cloth
The appellant imported PU Leather Cloth of different thicknesses at declared values. The Revenue enhanced the values based on contemporaneous import data and interchange of fabric rolls during examination. The Additional Commissioner enhanced the value further, leading to duty payment and confiscation of goods. The appellant contended that the declaration was based on the foreign supplier's invoice and objected to the use of NIDB data for value enhancement. The appellate authority upheld the Revenue's decision. However, the tribunal found the interchange of fabric rolls due to human error and no evidence of mala fide intent. It concluded that there was no mis-declaration in quantity, as the total number of rolls matched the imported quantity.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
The Original Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on the appellant for alleged mis-declaration. On appeal, the tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties, citing the absence of justifiable reasons after correcting the assessable value based on the interchange of fabric rolls.

Issue 3: Assessment of assessable value based on interchange of fabric rolls and NIDB data
The tribunal acknowledged the interchange of fabric rolls by the appellant but questioned the basis for determining the thickness of the fabric during examination. It noted the lack of expert opinion or laboratory test reports to support the Revenue's findings. The tribunal emphasized that NIDB data alone cannot justify enhancement of value without rejecting the transaction value with sufficient evidence, citing relevant tribunal and Supreme Court decisions. It directed the reassessment of the duty demand based on correct assessable value and set aside the enhancement done by the Revenue, leading to the disposal of the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration in imports, the necessity of sufficient evidence for value enhancement, and the need for fair assessment procedures in customs matters.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates