2018 (2) TMI 420 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of transaction value - contemporaneous imports - Held that - The valuation of imported goods is required to be done in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The transaction value of imported goods can be rejected only as per the provisions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules - In the present case, in respect of 32 Bills of Entry pertaining to imports, certain documents were recovered during the course of search from the laptop and mobiles pones. From among the documents recovered from the laptop and mobile phone, the department has recovered the invoices/commercial invoices pertaining to the goods imported under these Bills of Entry. Such invoices indicate that the goods were procured by the appellant from the foreign supplier at significantly higher prices than what has been declared to the department at the time of filing Bills of Entry - the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the transaction value of goods imported under the 32 Bills of Entry, in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. There is no infirmity on the part of the adjudicating authority in re-determining the value of the past imported goods on the basis of such invoices - there is no need for the Revenue to collect evidence in the form of contemporaneous imports. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration in quantity and value of imported goods.
2. Admissibility of documents recovered from electronic devices.
3. Rejection of transaction value and demand for differential customs duty.
4. Imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Reflective Sheeting and Luminescent Film, facing allegations of mis-declaration in quantity and value. Searches revealed incriminating documents on a laptop and mobile phone, leading to admissions of under-valuation by the importer's representative. The Customs Authorities issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding differential customs duty for past consignments, which was contested in the appeal.

2. The appellant challenged the admissibility of documents from electronic devices under Section 138C of the Customs Act. However, the statements of the importer's representative confirmed the authenticity of the recovered documents, justifying their use in re-determining the value of past imports. The appellant's failure to provide bank attested invoices further supported the department's actions.

3. Valuation of imported goods under Customs Act and Valuation Rules was crucial. The department rejected the transaction value based on recovered invoices showing higher prices than declared. The appellant's arguments for accepting transaction value without contemporaneous import evidence were dismissed. The adjudicating authority's decision to re-determine past import values based on recovered invoices was upheld.

4. The impugned order demanded differential customs duty, imposed penalties, and ordered confiscation of goods. The appellant's grounds for appeal, including procedural irregularities and reliance on case laws, were considered. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the evidence and legal provisions presented.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of mis-declaration, admissibility of evidence, valuation rules, and penalties involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.