9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 11 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported fabrics declared as Polyester Knitted Fabrics under CTH 6006 9000 - enhancement of value - the original authority redetermined the value of the goods as USD 59845.30 (Rs.27,64,853/- CIF) and classified the goods to be under CTH 60063300 - Held that - though the test report has been conducted, it is seen that the rate of duty in respect of both the classifications are same and therefore the contention of the appellant that they had any malafide intention to mis-declare or mis-classify the goods is not without force. Further, a certificate has been produced from the supplier and also bank statement to the effect that the appellant has paid only 4848 USD to the foreign supplier - reliance placed in the case of SAI IMPEX Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 1992 (7) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that the transaction value is not enhanceable in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods and that if the manufacturer s invoice is available and genuine, is the best evidence of the price of imported goods - the enhancement of value is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Misdeclaration of goods and value in the Bill of Entry. 2. Classification of goods under the correct Customs Tariff Heading. 3. Confiscation and penalty imposition based on the alleged violations. Analysis: Issue 1: Misdeclaration of goods and value The importer filed Bill of Entry for the import of fabrics declared as Polyester Knitted Fabrics, but discrepancies were found in the samples and documents. The test reports revealed the actual composition of the goods, which predominantly contained nylon monofilament and multifilament yarns along with metalised particles, contrary to the declaration. The quantity was also misdeclared. A show cause notice was issued proposing to fix the value of the goods and reclassify them, alleging misdeclaration and fabrication of documents. Issue 2: Classification of goods The appellants defended the show cause notice by asserting that the goods were correctly described as Polyester Knitted Fabrics, and any discrepancies were promptly addressed with explanations from the supplier. They argued that the classification under a different Customs Tariff Heading would not result in any duty evasion since both headings carried the same duty rate. The original authority reclassified the goods and imposed penalties, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 3: Confiscation and penalty imposition After adjudication, the original authority determined the value of the goods, reclassified them, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the enhancement of value was arbitrary and not supported by valid reasons. The Tribunal, considering relevant case laws, concluded that the enhancement of value based on the proforma invoice was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, highlighting that the enhancement of value was not justified based on the evidence presented. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper classification and accurate declaration of goods in customs documentation, while also underscoring the significance of valid evidence in determining the value of imported goods.
|
