2017 (4) TMI 311 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of imported air conditioners - DEPB Scheme - Held that - the goods came through Bill of Entry No.9909 dt. 17.4.2000 was under DEPB scheme. Ld. Commissioner did not examine at all that DEPB clearance whether was proper and in accordance with law and against proper DEPB scrips. That aspect needs rigorous test - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to issue notice to the respondent to hear the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of value in import causing prejudice to Customs, undervaluation of imported goods, proper examination of DEPB clearance.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue at hand was the misdeclaration of the value of air conditioners imported by the respondent, which was alleged to have caused prejudice to the interest of Customs. The Revenue contended that the value of the imported air conditioners was misdeclared, leading to undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question, Japanese origin Air-Conditioners of "O" General Brand, came through two Bills of Entry to India under Singapore invoices, where undervaluation was observed by Customs.

Regarding the specific Bills of Entry, it was found that there was undervaluation in both cases. For instance, in Bill of Entry No.9909 dated 17.4.2000, 50 air-conditioners of "O" General brand were imported under the DEPB scheme, with the declared value being equivalent to US$ 250 per unit. Similarly, in Bill of Entry No.274072 dated 19.5.2000, 96 Air-Conditioners of Model No.AXG-18 of 1.5 tons capacity were imported, with the declared value being US$ 250 CIF, later enhanced to US$ 268 per unit. Investigations revealed that the actual value of the air conditioners was higher than declared, as per information from the collaborator in Japan.

The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for not properly considering the investigation results and for relying heavily on irrelevant bills of entry provided by the respondent to determine the declared value as correct. It was noted that the authority did not delve into crucial aspects such as the origin of goods, manufacturer's price, cost of transportation, and value addition through assembly. The Tribunal found that the authority's approach showed misplaced sympathy towards the respondent, causing prejudice to the Revenue's interest.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of examination by the Commissioner regarding the DEPB clearance process and emphasized the need for a rigorous test in this regard. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh hearing in accordance with law. The Authority was instructed to consider the investigation results, provide the respondent with an opportunity for rebuttal, and ensure a fair process adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Registry was directed to inform the Chief Commissioner, Customs about the decision for necessary action.

In conclusion, the appeal was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with specific directions to address the issues raised and conduct a fair and thorough reevaluation of the case.