9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 392 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - entire case of undervaluation was made on the basis of DGOV Circular dated 07.08.2013 - Held that - The assessable value of the goods i.e. PU Belts is enhanced by the customs authorities mainly on the basis of DGOV Circular, which is not an authority to dispute the valuation of the imported goods. It is necessary that if there is any doubt, an investigation has to be carried out on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, though the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data but no bill of entry of contemporaneous import was brought on record. It is also not established that price of which goods adopted by the customs in the present case is of the same quality, quantity and origin. Therefore, the NIDB data is also of no basis and relevant to the present case. This Tribunal time and again has taken a view that enhancement of the value without proper evidence is not correct and legal - merely on the basis of NIDB data, the declared value cannot be enhanced. The enhancement of the value as held by the lower authorities, is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection and re-determination of declared value under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 2. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Demand and recovery of differential customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection and Re-determination of Declared Value: The appellant's declared value of ?22,19,739/- for imported PU belts was rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and re-determined to ?78,30,968/- under Rule 9. The customs authorities enhanced the value based on a DGOV Circular dated 07.08.2013, which suspected undervaluation in the import of PU belts. However, the appellant argued that the circular alone could not justify undervaluation and that no independent evidence was provided. The tribunal found that the customs authorities did not conduct a proper market enquiry or provide contemporaneous import data, making the enhancement arbitrary and without basis. The tribunal referenced several judgments supporting the need for concrete evidence to reject declared values, including the Supreme Court's decision in CC, Calcutta vs. South India Television Pvt. Limited, which emphasized the necessity of evidence for contemporaneous imports at higher prices to prove under-invoicing. 2. Confiscation of Imported Goods: The goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them on payment of a redemption fine of ?7,72,000/-. The tribunal noted that the confiscation was based on the re-determined value, which was found to be unsustainable due to the lack of proper evidence and market enquiry. Consequently, the basis for confiscation was also deemed invalid. 3. Demand and Recovery of Differential Customs Duty: The customs duty of ?22,59,378/- was confirmed on the re-determined value of ?78,30,968/-, with an amount of ?6,44,764/- already paid by the appellant being appropriated. Interest on the short-paid duty was also confirmed under Section 28AA. The tribunal, however, set aside the demand for differential duty and interest, as the re-determined value was found to be unjustified. 4. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, were imposed, amounting to ?16,14,614/-. The tribunal referenced the necessity of evidence to support allegations of undervaluation and noted that the penalties were based on the re-determined value, which was not upheld. Therefore, the imposition of penalties was also set aside. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the value was not sustainable due to the lack of proper evidence and market enquiry. The order of the lower authorities was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of undervaluation. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 04.12.2018, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
