Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 67 - AT - CustomsWhen such act on the part of the importer has to be held as mala fide so as to attract the violation of mis-declaration, as regards quantity - Import of PU Leather Cloth - Interchange of number of rolls of two different types of thicknesses - Held that - we have examined the commercial invoice which also interchanges the two types of thicknesses of the fabrics imported by the assesse. It is based upon the said invoice itself that wrong declaration was made by the importer. There is otherwise no evidence on record to reflect upon any mala fide of the assesse. As such by extending benefit of doubt to the appellant has also attributing the said inadvertent mistake to human error, we hold that there was no mis-declaration in respect of the quantum of the fabrics, in as much as the total number of rolls match with the quantity imported by the appellant. Enhancement of value - Held that - in the present case, it is found that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence produced by the Revenue to suspect the correctness of the transaction value. If that be so, the transaction value has to be accepted as the correct assessable value. Further, it is again well settled that NIDB data cannot be adopted as a ground for enhancement of the value. As such in the absence of any other evidence on record, we find no merits in the Revenue s stand. However, it stands admitted by the appellant that 293 rolls declared as 0.5 mm thickness were, in fact, 0.9 mm thickness and 127 rolls declared as 0.9 mm thickness were, in fact, of 0.5 mm thickness. The price per meter stands given on the invoice raised by the foreign supplier. We also not further that marginal increase in the price done by the Customs Authorities on first check basis does not stand appealed against the assesse. As such the value adopted for assessment by the Revenue Department on the first check basis is required to be taken as the correct assessable value on per meter basis and the total assessable value of the consignment is required to be re-calculated based upon the total number of rolls of two different thicknesses. For the said purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Aujudicating Authority for calculating the duty demand, if any. Therefore, the enhancement of the imported goods as adopted by the Revenue is set aside. Also no justifiable reasons found for confiscation of goods or for imposition of penalties. - Appeal disposed of
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.
|