2018 (9) TMI 1286 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - assorted belt buckles - appellant s contention is that the buckles found by the officers were not of prime quality and the same were in the nature of scrap - is enhancement of value justified? Held that - An identical case of the same assessee was dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Vardhaman Sales Agency 2018 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where, the charges of mis-declaration and the consequent enhancement of value were set aside by holding that there is no intention of the appellant to mis-declare the goods for the reason that the appellant under-took to mutilate the goods which were objected to be of prime nature by Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods declared as scrap.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and enhancement of value by the revenue.
3. Appeal against the order of the original adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Zinc scrap classified as "Scope" and declared it as scrap valued at USD 1527 per MT. The revenue conducted a physical examination and found belt buckles with spoiled polish, suspecting the goods could be sold for metal at a higher value. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value to USD 2040 per MT, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties.

2. The appellant argued that the belt buckles were not prime quality and were imported for zinc content, falling under a specific classification for Zinc scrap. They contended that the goods were declared based on documents from the foreign supplier and requested mutilation if unsatisfied. The appellant challenged the expertise of the chartered engineer and the lack of evidence supporting the value enhancement.

3. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision involving the same appellant, it was noted that there was no intention to mis-declare the goods based on foreign supplier documents. The Tribunal set aside the mis-declaration charges and value enhancement, emphasizing the need for actual price consideration in valuation. Following this precedent, the impugned order was overturned, granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing the lack of merit in the revenue's actions and aligning with the previous decision regarding valuation and mis-declaration issues. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief based on the established legal principles and precedents.