2018 (5) TMI 846 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - assorted frames (plastic optical frames) and sunglasses - Held that - the market enquiry report submitted by the Department clearly shows that the subject goods were substandard, outdated and were of inferior quality - the approximate sale price submitted by the traders/ shopkeepers with regard to the disputed goods was also disputed by the appellant. The Department has also not brought on any evidence to prove that over and above the invoice value, the appellant had paid any other or further amount towards the purchase of the imported goods. The declared value in this case, cannot be rejected and value cannot be re-determined in absence of any plausible evidence regarding mis-declaration of the value of the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-determination of assessable value of imported goods
2. Confiscation of goods, penalties, and adjudged demands
3. Market enquiry and value determination
4. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order

Analysis:
1. The case involved the re-determination of the assessable value of imported goods, specifically frames and sunglasses, by the Department. The appellant had initially declared a value which was later re-determined by the authorities, resulting in a significant differential customs duty payable by the appellant company. The matter went through various stages of assessment and re-determination, leading to the imposition of additional duty and penalties based on the revised value.

2. The order dated 20.03.2017 confirmed the re-determined value of the goods, imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, and confiscated the goods covered under the bill of entry. The appellants challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the adjudged demand against the appellants in the impugned order dated 13.11.2017. The appellant contended that the entire invoice amount was paid to the overseas supplier through approved banking channels, and the market enquiry conducted by the Department supported the quality of the goods declared for assessment.

3. The appellant's advocate argued that the market enquiry conducted by the Department confirmed the quality of the goods as substandard and inferior, which should support the appellant's case regarding the declared value for assessment. However, the Department maintained its findings and submission based on the market enquiry conducted post the initial order dated 21.10.2016. The Tribunal examined the case records and found no evidence of mis-declaration of goods or value in the bill of entry. The Department's market enquiry report and the traders/shopkeepers' submissions did not provide substantial evidence to reject the declared value.

4. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal concluded that the declared value could not be rejected or re-determined without plausible evidence of mis-declaration. The Tribunal held that the adjudged demands confirmed against the appellant could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the re-determination of the value and the appellant's compliance with payment through approved banking channels.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellants.