2017 (5) TMI 857 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of items which are in the nature of Toys, Ash Tray, Soft balls etc - enhancement of value based upon the NIDB data - Held that - demand of duty in respect of 30 declared items by enhancing their value on NIDB Data basis cannot be upheld - confiscation can also not be upheld. As regards Glass Chatons, it stands fairly admitted before us that the same were not declared by the importer. As such, we hold that such undeclared items are liable to confiscation and the importer is also liable to penalty - for the limited purpose of classification of the Glass Chatons, we remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision - matter on remand. As regards the confiscation of the 30 declared items, in terms of Section 119 of the Customs Act, we find that there is nothing on record to show that the same were used for concealing the undeclared goods. Mere presence of the declared and undeclared items in the import consignment would not ipso-facto lead to the conclusion that declared items were brought only with the intention of concealing the undeclared items. As such, we hold that their confiscation is not called for, the same is accordingly set-aside. As regards the penalty on Shri Pankaj Gupta, Partner of the firm, we find that the partnership firm has already been held liable to penalty and as such imposition of separate penalty on the partner is not justified. As regards penalty on Shri Rohit Saran, we find that the same stands imposed only for alleged violation of CHA Regulations and not for the contravention of any of the provision of Customs Act - in the absence of any positive role played by CHA for abetment to the exporter in that case, penalty imposition for violation of CHA Regulations was set-aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of value of imported items based on NIDB Data.
2. Classification and confiscation of undeclared Glass Chatons.
3. Confiscation of declared items under Section 119 of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalties on the importer, partner of the firm, and CHA employee.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the appeal concerning the enhancement of the value of imported items based on NIDB Data. The appellants argued that NIDB Data alone cannot be the sole basis for value enhancement, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed, stating that without additional evidence, such enhancement cannot be upheld. Consequently, the demand for duty on the declared items was not sustained.

2. Regarding the Glass Chatons issue, the appellants admitted non-declaration but contested the classification. The Tribunal found the Commissioner failed to address relevant legal precedents provided by the appellants. Thus, the matter was remanded for fresh decision on classification, duty liability reassessment, and quantification of penalties.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the confiscation of declared items under Section 119 of the Customs Act. It was noted that mere presence of declared and undeclared items does not automatically imply intent to conceal. As a result, the confiscation of the declared items was set aside.

4. The Tribunal addressed penalties imposed on various parties. The penalty on the partner of the firm was overturned based on legal precedent. Similarly, the penalty on the CHA employee was set aside as it was solely for CHA Regulations violation, not Customs Act contravention, aligning with relevant legal decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on the issues of value enhancement based on NIDB Data, classification and confiscation of Glass Chatons, confiscation of declared items, and imposition of penalties on the importer, partner of the firm, and CHA employee. The matter was remanded for further assessment and decision in line with legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.