2017 (9) TMI 1136 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported machines - CD Replication machines - mis-declaration - principle of equality and equal protection - Held that - there was typographical error in declaring Euro 22 lakhs plus as valuation, which is impossible. It shows casualness and careless attitude on the part of the adjudicating authority - in the case of other importers, the same item was valued at 2,10,000 Euro at the same time - By keeping in mind the principle of equality and equal protection of the law, the same treatment will have to be given in the assessee s case when the exporter s machine and export are at par - the adjudicating authority directed to compute the valuation of each machine @ of 2,10,000 Euro and demand the balance customs duty as per law. Regarding the penalty, the same may be made equal to the difference of the duty amount. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods' value.
2. Completeness of overseas inquiry.
3. Applicability of Customs Valuation Rules.
4. Principle of equality in treatment of importers.
5. Modification of duty demand and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against an order-in-original dated 24.08.2008 regarding the mis-declaration of the value of imported CD Replication machines in Feb. 2004. The Customs Department alleged undervaluation, leading to duty demand, based on an overseas inquiry conducted through the Embassy of India with information from Dutch Customs Authorities. The appellants contested the mis-declaration, stating the machines were imported as declared, with one being a demo machine imported at a reduced price. The issue was whether the duty demand was justified.

2. The appellants argued that the overseas inquiry was incomplete as documents relied upon were not properly signed. The Department, however, contended that information received from Dutch Customs Authorities through the First Secretary of Customs in Belgium supported the duty demand. The Tribunal noted the age of the matter and the casual error in valuation, indicating a careless approach by the adjudicating authority.

3. The Tribunal examined the impugned order's findings, noting discrepancies in valuations of identical machines imported by other entities at 2,10,000 Euro. It emphasized the principle of equality in treatment, directing the valuation of each machine at 2,10,000 Euro, in line with other importers. The decision was based on Customs Valuation Rules and the need for consistent treatment of importers under similar circumstances.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to compute the valuation of each machine at 2,10,000 Euro, adjusting the duty demand accordingly. The penalty imposed was to be equal to the difference in duty amount. The adjudicating authority was directed to reevaluate any remaining issues, providing the appellants with a fair opportunity. The appeals were partly allowed, ensuring fair treatment and compliance with Customs regulations.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the mis-declaration issue, completeness of the overseas inquiry, application of Customs Valuation Rules, equality in treatment of importers, and modification of duty demand and penalty imposition. The decision aimed to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with legal provisions in customs matters, ensuring a balanced and just resolution of the dispute.