2018 (3) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of transaction value - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - original adjudicating authority has held tyhat various importers have imported the goods of same make, same country of origin at higher value than the value declared by the importer. For this reason declared values has been rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has however, held that goods cannot be fully compared with identical imports and hence their value cannot be determined by following the Rules 4, 5, 7 or 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. There is no infirmity in the decision of the lower appellate authority upholding the enhancement of the value of the imported goods - also, the lower appellate authority has sufficiently justified the reduction of redemption fine and penalties. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty

Valuation of imported goods:
The case involved an appeal regarding the valuation of imported goods by M/s. True Impex. The original adjudicating authority rejected the declared values based on comparisons with similar imports and adopted an enhanced value. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the customs authorities did not follow the Customs Valuation Rules and rejected the transaction value without a valid basis. However, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had provided detailed reasoning for the valuation decision, considering the values of similar imports and the importer's acceptance of certain values for assessment. The Tribunal upheld the enhancement of the value of the imported goods based on Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. Additionally, the importer's proprietor had accepted the offense, further supporting the valuation decision. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the decision to enhance the value of the imported goods.

Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:
The appeals also addressed the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the original authority, leading to appeals from both the importer and the department. The department argued that considering the extent of violations of customs laws, a higher redemption fine and penalty should have been imposed. However, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had justified the reduction of the redemption fine and penalties in the impugned order. The Tribunal also noted that the lower appellate authority allowed the importers to re-export certain electric iron boxes. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals (No. C/428/2010 and C/78/2011) as it did not find merit in either party's arguments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision on the valuation of imported goods, finding no fault in the enhanced value determination. Additionally, the Tribunal supported the lower appellate authority's reasoning for reducing the redemption fine and penalties. The appeals were dismissed, and the operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.