2018 (5) TMI 616 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of transaction value - import of Desk top Board classic series - the quantity mentioned in the invoice did not tally with the actual description of the goods in respect of the Intel core duo processors - Held that - On scrutiny of the NIDB data available in respect of contemporaneous imports, the values as mentioned above are rightly adoptable for redetermining the value of the impugned goods in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rule, 1988 - the due consideration was shown towards aspects like physical characteristics, quantity, make, model, sale at the same commercial level. In view of these facts, the adoption of value of identical goods as discussed in the show cause notice is upheld. Since there is misdeclaration of value; the confiscation of goods ordered is also upheld, and redemption fine in lien of confiscation seems to be in consonance with the numerous decisions of the Tribunal, accordingly, the confiscation is upheld, as also the redemption fine imposed. Penalty u/s 112 of CA - Held that - the ends of justice would be met, by upholding the penalty but the same is reduced to ₹ 3 lakh from ₹ 28,10,331/-. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of transaction value and redetermination of assessable value.
2. Confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original rejecting the declared value of imported goods and redetermining the assessable value based on Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the transaction value due to discrepancies in quantity description and invoices issued by a non-manufacturer. The Authority re-determined the value based on similar goods imported around the same time, confiscating the goods, imposing a redemption fine of ?8,00,000, and a penalty of ?28,10,331. The appellant contended that the rejection lacked justification and misdeclaration allegations were unfounded, advocating for acceptance of the transaction value.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, emphasizing Rule 5 regarding the value of imported goods based on identical goods imported around the same time. The Adjudicating Authority's re-determination relied on NIDB data of contemporaneous imports, adopting values of similar goods to ascertain the value of the impugned goods. The Tribunal upheld the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and redemption fine, citing precedents like Deepak Electronics and N.K. Agarwal. Regarding the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found the original amount disproportionate and reduced it to ?3 lakh, considering the enhanced value. The Tribunal concluded by upholding the re-determined value, duty liability, confiscation, redemption fine, and the reduced penalty.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, legal provisions applied, and the Tribunal's final decision on each aspect of the case.