2018 (8) TMI 505 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of quantity of export goods - extra bottle supplied by the foreign supplier in respect of some of the items - Revenue has alleged misdeclaration on the sole ground that the quantity of goods declared in the Bill of entry is less than the quantity of actual bottles imported by the appellant - Held that - The appellant in the column of description in the Bill of Entry has clearly mentioned against the involved entries as two bottles , though under the column quantity of each package, the said extra bottles have not been specified. The fact of mentioning two bottles against the concerned serial numbers in respect of some of the supplements is indicative of the appellant‟s bona fide - Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that the appellant has paid any extra amount for the one bottle supplied free of cost by the foreign supplier. As such, the total transaction value paid for the entire consignment has to be treated as the assessable value for the consignment and in the absence of any evidence of any extra payment made by the importer, the enhancement done by the Revenue cannot be held to be justifiable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Misdeclaration of quantity and undervaluation of imported goods.

Analysis:
The appellant imported a consignment of "Nutritional Supplements" from a foreign supplier, where discrepancies were found in the quantity declared. Investigations revealed that the importer had availed a "buy one get one free" offer from the supplier. The Revenue alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation, leading to a show cause notice, confirming duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the dispute centered around the extra bottles supplied by the foreign supplier under the promotional offer. The Revenue did not contest the offer's existence but focused on the quantity discrepancy in the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had transparently mentioned "two bottles" in the description column, indicating good faith. The appellant had paid the total value, including the extra bottles, as per the supplier's invoices, implying correct assessable value.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not amount to misdeclaration, as the transaction value paid to the supplier covered the additional bottles. Without evidence of extra payment by the importer, the Revenue's enhancement of assessable value was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.