2016 (10) TMI 903 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of value - import of rough marble blocks from Italy - valid import license to cover the consignment - Held that - appellants imported goods which are restricted item for which the import license is required. As admittedly, the appellant had not produced any license to cover the present imports, there is admittedly contravention of law. The appellants have explained that they are regular importer for which purpose they have the license and the present import has taken place without the license on account of calculation of quantity mistake. However, the fact remains that there are no valid license covering the present import. As such, we hold that confiscation on the said count is valid. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case leading to imports being without license, the appellants are given an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of ₹ 8 lakhs. Similarly, for the above reason, penalty is also reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/- - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Validity of import license for the goods.
2. Enhancement of value of imported goods.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
4. Reliance on Notional Import Data Bank (NIDB) data for valuation.

Validity of Import License:
The appellant, a regular importer of rough marble blocks from Italy, did not possess a valid import license for the consignment in question. The Revenue initiated proceedings for enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties due to this reason. The appellant argued that the present import occurred without a license due to a calculation mistake regarding the quantity covered by earlier licenses. However, the adjudicating authority did not accept this explanation, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

Enhancement of Value:
The main grievance of the appellant was regarding the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Commissioner based on NIDB data. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value reflected in the invoices should be first rejected by the Revenue as incorrect based on tangible evidence. In this case, the adjudicating authority failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the transaction value declared by the importer was incorrect. The reliance on NIDB data alone for enhancing the value was deemed insufficient without supporting evidence relating to similar goods.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalties:
The appellant's failure to produce a valid import license for the restricted goods led to the confiscation of the goods. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case where the import occurred without a license due to a calculation mistake, the Tribunal allowed the redemption of goods on payment of a fine. The penalty imposed was also reduced due to the same reason.

Reliance on NIDB Data for Valuation:
The Tribunal highlighted that NIDB data is considered a secondary piece of evidence and cannot be solely relied upon without supporting evidence related to similar goods, bills of entries, invoices, quantity, and quality of imported goods. Various precedents were cited to emphasize that NIDB data alone is insufficient for enhancing the value of imported goods without additional independent evidence establishing the comparable nature of the goods.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to allow redemption of goods on payment of a fine and reduce the penalty imposed due to the absence of a valid import license for the restricted goods. The judgment emphasized the importance of rejecting the transaction value based on concrete evidence before resorting to alternative valuation methods like NIDB data.

← Previous Next →