2018 (2) TMI 1421 - AT - Customs

Valuation - The grievance of the appellant is that the Department proceeded to take NIDB data that too on a higher basis - Held that - the value as declared by the importer was based on an invoice, which was admittedly not genuine. In such situation, proposals were made based on the contemporenous assessment, correctness of which has been admitted. No protest has been recorded. As such, we cannot be now called upon to examine the correctness of value in absence of any ground towards that. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appellant themselves were in fault in presenting a fake invoice. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, discrepancies in cargo contents, customs duty, penalty, confiscation of goods, redemption fine.

Valuation of imported goods:
The appellant imported glass chatons, and discrepancies were found in the declared value and contents of the cargo. Investigations revealed a second invoice with a higher value, leading to proceedings for demanding differential customs duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The Original Authority re-determined the value and confirmed customs duty and penalties. The impugned order allowed redemption of goods on payment of a fine under the Customs Act, 1962.

Discrepancies in cargo contents:
The appellant admitted minor discrepancies in the imported cargo contents but contested the valuation issue. The Department claimed misdeclaration in the value and contents of the cargo, citing a higher value in a recovered invoice. The appellant argued that the Department relied on NIDB data at a higher basis and sought to set aside the impugned order on the valuation issue.

Customs duty, penalty, confiscation of goods, redemption fine:
The appellant requested the first check of cargo and admitted misdeclaration in the contents but disputed the valuation process. The Department contended that the appellant malafidely declared a wrong value, and the investigation revealed a higher value in a second invoice. The appellant paid duty, penalty, and redemption fine to clear the cargo, while the Department highlighted the misdeclaration and monitoring of imports from China. The Tribunal noted the admitted misdeclarations and the appellant's plea regarding the second invoice, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's fault in presenting a fake invoice and accepting the re-valuation proposal based on contemporaneous imports.

Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant admitted misdeclarations, paid duty and penalties, and waived the show cause notice, precluding a challenge to the valuation process. Despite citing case laws on the Department's obligation to provide reasons for re-determination of value, the Tribunal held that the appellant's fault in presenting a fake invoice and accepting the re-valuation proposal precluded the need for detailed reasons. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, dismissing it based on the appellant's actions and acceptance of the re-valuation proposal.