9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 667 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - enhancement of declared value - determination of transaction value - Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Since in terms of the permission granted by the jurisdictional Commissioner vide order dated 18.11.2009, the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry and other import documents, the value declared for the purpose of assessment should be considered, in absence of any plausible evidence that the declared price is not true transaction value and over and above the agreed price, the appellant had paid more consideration through the mode, other than the banking channel - Since Section 14 of the Act mandates that the value of the goods is to be considered on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold for export to India, the negotiated price offered by the overseas supplier should be considered as the transaction value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 39013000, valuation of imported goods, determination of transaction value, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty. Classification of Imported Goods: The appellant filed Bills of Entry for importation of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) under CTH 39013000. The declared value was USD 1200/- PMT, which was lower than the earlier consignment's declared unit price of USD 1800/- PMT. The import consignment was seized by the DRI due to investigations into fraudulent import practices. The DRI proposed to enhance the value to &8377; 60,00,000/- based on Customs Valuation Rules and Customs Act provisions. The appellant, M/s. Texpo, filed a writ petition to change the consignee's name to M/s. Kumar Mahendra Exim, the appellant. The Customs Department allowed the change, and upon filing the Bill of Entry, the department observed undervaluation issues. The department adjudicated the matter, rejecting the declared value and redetermining it at &8377; 56,07,121/-, confiscating the goods with an option for redemption and imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. Valuation of Imported Goods: The appellant argued that the declared value was the true transaction value, and there was no undervaluation. They contended that the goods were not cleared by the original consignee, and the supplier offered the goods at a negotiated price of USD 1200/- PMT, which should be considered the transaction value under Rule 14 of the Customs Act. The respondent, however, supported the findings of the impugned order, stating that the demands were in line with statutory provisions. Determination of Transaction Value: The Commissioner did not accept the negotiated price of USD 1200/- PMT, claiming it was not part of international trade but domestic trade. However, the Tribunal found that the negotiated price should be considered the transaction value as per Section 14 of the Act. Since the appellant filed the Bill of Entry based on permission granted by the Commissioner, the declared value should be accepted unless there is evidence of overpayment outside the banking channel. The Tribunal held that the rejected declared value, redetermination, confiscation, and penalties in the impugned order were not sustainable and set them aside. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty: The impugned order had confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and penalty on the appellant. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant after setting them aside. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of classification, valuation, determination of transaction value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.
|
