2016 (9) TMI 974 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of value - demand of differential duty - import of second hand cannon copiers - examination of goods by department and SIIB - unauthorized import - prices of some of the models were found higher than the prices declared by importers - Held that - proceeding sequentially through rules 5 to 8 of the Customs valuation Rules, 1988 to determine the value of the goods under reference is the correct methodology to be followed - no infirmity found in the assesseble value arrived. Imposition of redemption fine under section 125 of the Custos Act, 1962 - Held that - the appellant did not produce required license for importation rendering the import unauthorized and in violation of Sections 3(2) and 3 (3) of the F T(D& R) Act, 1992. The goods become liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - goods becoming liable to confiscation thereby option available to appellant to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation - imposition of redemption fine within ambit of law and also reasonable in quantum. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Act also justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported second hand cannon copiers
2. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine
3. Authorization for importation and compliance with customs regulations

Valuation of Imported Second Hand Cannon Copiers:
The appellant contested the enhanced value of imported second hand cannon copiers by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. The declared value of &8377; 21,69,044 was challenged based on the discrepancy between the declared prices and the market value obtained from M/s Canon India (P) Ltd. The adjudicating authority sequentially applied Customs valuation Rules, 1988, rejecting the declared value and other appraised values. The value of &8377; 34,02,653 was determined based on a detailed examination and investigation, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The appellant's contentions regarding valuation rules, corroborative evidence for undervaluation, and comparison with new machines were addressed, concluding that the assessable value was correctly determined.

Imposition of Penalty and Redemption Fine:
The imposition of a redemption fine of &8377; 4,50,000 was justified due to the appellant's failure to produce the required importation license, rendering the import unauthorized and in violation of relevant regulations. The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods but allowed redemption upon payment of the fine, deemed lawful and reasonable by the Tribunal. Additionally, the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Act was upheld, as there was no evidence of deliberate defiance of law by the appellant.

Authorization for Importation and Compliance with Customs Regulations:
The appellant's failure to produce the necessary importation license led to the imposition of the redemption fine, highlighting the importance of complying with the provisions of the F T(D&R) Act, 1992. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the actions of the adjudicating authority regarding the authorization for importation and subsequent penalties imposed. The appeal was dismissed based on the upheld valuation, penalty, and redemption fine decisions.