2017 (11) TMI 550 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Re-assessment of Bills of Entry - re-assessment on the ground that the appellant had undervalued the imported goods - Held that - the adjudicating authority has not specifically discussed the submissions of the appellant and discarded the declared value, solely relying on the e-mail received from M/s Leoch Battery and the NIDB data obtained by the Department. The E-mail data cannot be accepted as the contemporaneous import, for the reason that the period of import indicated there in was from September, 2011 to January, 2012 - there is no specific data available in the NIDB report that the goods are of identical/similar in nature and also the quality of the goods imported is not proportionate to the quantity mentioned in such data. Thus, value of subject goods imported in this case cannot be discarded and the same cannot be enhanced by placing reliance on the e-mail, NIDB and the invoices obtained from different sources. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the department has not brought on any corroborative evidence to show suppression of facts on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue - demand beyond the normal period set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods
2. Confiscation of motor cycle batteries
3. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962
4. Reliance on overseas supplier's quotation, e-mails, and NIDB data
5. Applicability of judgments in similar cases
6. Corroborative evidence for suppression of facts
7. Normal period of limitation for initiating proceedings

Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported Motor Cycle batteries and filed Bills of Entry for assessment. The Customs authority re-assessed the goods, alleging undervaluation. Show cause proceedings were initiated, leading to the confirmation of a differential Customs duty against the appellant. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared assessable value, relying on various documents like overseas supplier quotations, e-mails, and NIDB data. The appellant argued that the imported goods were purchased at negotiated prices and were of inferior quality. They contested the reliance on certain documents due to differences in periods and quantities. The Tribunal found that the declared value could not be enhanced based on the evidence presented and set aside the adjudged demands.

Confiscation of Motor Cycle Batteries and Penalties:
The impugned order not only confirmed the duty demand but also imposed penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, it confiscated 18 motor cycle batteries and imposed a redemption fine on the appellant. The appellant challenged these actions, arguing that the evidence used to support the confiscation and penalties was not sufficient. The Tribunal, after examining the records and submissions, found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties and confiscation.

Reliance on Overseas Supplier's Quotation, E-mails, and NIDB Data:
The adjudicating authority relied on various documents, including the quotation of an overseas supplier, e-mails, and NIDB data, to establish undervaluation of the imported goods. The appellant contested the validity of this reliance, pointing out discrepancies in periods, quantities, and quality of goods. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove undervaluation, especially considering the differences in import periods and quantities. It emphasized that NIDB data cannot be relied upon without proof of similarity in goods and quantities.

Applicability of Judgments in Similar Cases:
The appellant cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their argument against enhancing the declared value. The Tribunal considered these references but ultimately based its decision on the specific facts and evidence presented in the case at hand. It concluded that the evidence did not justify the enhancement of the declared value and ruled in favor of the appellant.

Corroborative Evidence for Suppression of Facts:
The Tribunal noted the absence of corroborative evidence to show that the appellant had suppressed facts to defraud the Government revenue. It emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support allegations of fraud or suppression. Without such evidence, the Tribunal found that the show cause proceedings initiated beyond the normal period of limitation were not justified and set them aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of merit in the confirmed demands, penalties, and confiscation. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence and ensuring that reliance on external documents is supported by clear similarities in relevant factors.

← Previous Next →