2017 (9) TMI 594 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value as well as description of goods - confiscation - Held that - The declaration of goods made in the relevant Bill of Entry by the importer was not substantiated by the examination report when the goods were taken up for 100% examination. Significant differences were noticed in respect of description as declared in the Bill of Entry as well as actual value. The quantities declared were also found to be not correct - the charge of mis-declaration stands established against the importer confiscation upheld. Levy of ADD - import of calculators in SKD condition - case of appellant is that appellant has imported parts and accessories of calculators in SKD condition. Since the imported goods were not complete calculators levy of anti dumping duty is not justified - Held that - it is not in dispute that the calculators will become functional only by addition of a few more components such as Diode and connecting wire etc. Even if the imported parts and accessories make up 98% of the calculator we are of the view that the imported goods cannot be considered as calculators imported from China. Consequently the non functional calculators cannot be levied to anti dumping duty in terms of the notification - levy of ADD set aside. Valuation - Enhancement of value of the imported goods - case of appellant is that market enquiry has been conducted by the customs authorities behind the back of the importer since relevant documents were not supplied to them - Held that - It is settled position of law that once the importer has admitted the re-determination of value on record and has accepted the method of such valuation he cannot subsequently challenge the same on the same ground. Consequently we uphold the re-determination of value carried out by the customs authorities. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Levy of anti-dumping duty, Valuation of imported goods.

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The appellant, a trader, imported goods from China, declaring them as specific items in the Bill of Entry. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were unbranded and generic, with discrepancies in description and quantity. The goods declared as incomplete calculators were actually complete calculators in semi knock down condition. The value of the imported goods was re-determined after market enquiries, leading to a significant increase in the assessable value. The Department also proposed levying anti-dumping duty on calculators imported in semi knock down form. The impugned order upheld the re-determination of value, levy of customs duty, and anti-dumping duty, imposing penalties and allowing redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fines. The appellant challenged the order on grounds of mis-declaration and valuation.

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The issue of whether anti-dumping duty was justified on the imported electronic calculators from China was examined. Although various parts and accessories of calculators were imported, it was noted that the calculators would only become functional with the addition of a few more components. The Tribunal held that even if the imported parts comprised 98% of the calculator, they could not be considered as complete calculators imported from China. Therefore, the imposition of anti-dumping duty on non-functional calculators was deemed unjustified, and the levy of anti-dumping duty in the impugned order was set aside.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The customs authorities re-determined the value of the imported goods based on market enquiries and Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant challenged this valuation, arguing that the market enquiry was conducted without providing relevant documents. However, it was noted that the appellant's proprietor had accepted the increased valuation during a statement to customs officers. The Tribunal held that once the importer voluntarily accepts the re-determined value and valuation method, they cannot subsequently challenge it. Therefore, the re-determination of value carried out by the customs authorities was upheld, resulting in an increase in the assessable value of the goods. Customs duty was to be paid on the increased value, while anti-dumping duty was deemed not payable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order by upholding the re-determination of value, confirming the confiscation of goods with redemption on payment of fines, and imposing penalties equal to the re-determined duty amount. The appeal decision was pronounced on 20.07.2017.