2017 (11) TMI 786 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value - Glass Chatons/stones - the goods were undervalued, when compared with the imports through Mumbai Customs and NIDB data - Held that - the subject goods are to be classified as glass beads under Customs Tariff Heading 7018 10 20. The Revenue has not given any substantial material and evidence to differ from the finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in appeal - The impugned order-in-appeal further, analyses the valuation aspect in detail and conclude that the Department did not produce any evidence to reject the transaction value in the present case. The impugned order arrives at the finding that the order passed by Additional Commissioner enhancing the assessable value is not fair and legal and transaction value declared by the importer is true transaction value. The Department has not given any further evidence to substantiate that the respondent misdeclared the description and value of the goods. There is no convincing ground given by the Revenue to reject the transaction value declared in the import documents by the respondent importer - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against misdeclaration of value in goods imported by M/s. Panna Lal & Sons.

In this case, the Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which set aside the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The dispute arose from the misdeclaration of value in the import documents for Fancy Glass Beads by M/s. Panna Lal & Sons. The Additional Commissioner found the goods to be undervalued and imposed penalties and duties. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that there was no clear evidence to discard the transaction value declared by the importer.

The Tribunal analyzed the case and found that the subject goods should be classified as glass beads under Customs Tariff Heading 7018 10 20, in line with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) decision. The Revenue failed to provide substantial evidence to challenge this classification. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that the Department did not present any evidence to reject the transaction value declared by the importer. The impugned order-in-appeal thoroughly examined the valuation aspect and determined that the transaction value declared was accurate.

Moreover, the Revenue did not provide convincing grounds to prove that the respondent misdeclared the description and value of the goods. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order-in-appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of substantial evidence to reject the transaction value declared by the importer. The judgment was pronounced on 23-2-2017 by the Tribunal, affirming the decision in favor of M/s. Panna Lal & Sons.