2016 (10) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - valuation - assessable value - rejection of Declared value - confiscation of imported goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 - earth moving equipment - of Japanese origin - As per Rule 10((1)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of Imported Goods) Rules 1988, the importer or his agent shall furnish the invoices of the manufacturer or producer of imported goods, in cases where goods are imported from or through a person other than the manufacturer producer. The goods are declared as of Japanese origin, neither the country of origin certificate were produced nor manufacturer s invoice produced to substantiate the invoice price. There is a vast difference between the invoice value and the manufacturer s price list value. In spite of the order by the Hon ble High Court, the goods were not released and the same were subsequently auctioned without issuing the notice to the appellant. The appellant prayed for compensation - Held that - compensation granted by the Hon ble High Court is under the writ jurisdiction of the Hon ble High Court which is a constitutional court whereas the Tribunal does not have the power to grant compensation in such cases - compensation cannot be granted. Mis-declaration on the part of appellant proved - Penalty imposed on the appellant held to be on higher side and the penalty now reduced to ₹ 25,000/- - appeal rejected on other grounds - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denovo order passed by Commissioner
- Rejection of value quoted by importer
- Fixing assessable value
- Confiscation of goods
- Appropriation of sale proceeds
- Penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962
- Country of origin certificate not produced
- Comparison of invoice price and manufacturer's price list
- Evasion of customs duty
- Remand order by CESTAT
- Appeal against Commissioner's order
- Compensation for confiscated goods
- Imposition of penalty

Denovo Order and Value Rejection:
The appeal challenged a denovo order by the Commissioner, where the value quoted by the importer was rejected, and assessable value was fixed. The Commissioner confiscated the goods, appropriated sale proceeds, and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The issue arose from discrepancies between the invoice price and the manufacturer's price list, leading to suspicions of customs duty evasion.

Country of Origin and Price Determination:
The case involved goods declared as of Japanese origin without a country of origin certificate. The Commissioner compared the invoice price with the manufacturer's price list to determine the assessable value. Discrepancies in pricing led to suspicions of undervaluation and attempted customs duty evasion.

Remand Order and Appeal:
CESTAT previously remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination. The Commissioner, in the denovo proceedings, reaffirmed the assessable values, leading to the current appeal. The appellant contested the order, citing failures to consider submissions and evidence regarding the goods' origin and pricing.

Compensation and Penalty Imposition:
The appellant sought compensation for confiscated goods, referencing legal precedents. However, the Tribunal clarified its limited power to grant compensation, upholding the confiscation due to proven misdeclaration. The penalty imposed was deemed excessive, leading to a reduction from &8377; 2,00,000 to &8377; 25,000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the modified penalty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of denovo order, value rejection, country of origin, price determination, remand order, appeal, compensation, and penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes.