2019 (2) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value - Detention of goods on the ground that the appellant have not been able to produce the import documents or purchase documents of the imported auto parts which were detained from the domestic market area - Provisional release of the seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Since the declared value of the import consignment has already been enhanced by the Department and as it is a settled legal principle that once enhanced, the same value cannot be re-visited again without any concrete evidences. As alleged in the show cause notice dated 01/03/2018 that price list mention the higher prices than declared by the importer we will like to mention that the price list of any product cannot be taken as the basis for determining the transaction value as has already been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Provisional release of the goods should be allowed to the appellant on submission of a bond for an amount of ₹ 92,90,825/- backed by bank guarantee of ₹ 2 lakhs as per provisions of Section 110 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to alleged mis-declaration of value and absence of import documents. Provisional release conditions set by the Department deemed harsh by the appellant. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order endorsing provisional release conditions.

Analysis:
The appellants, importers of automobile parts, faced detention of goods by the Department on suspicion of mis-declared value and absence of import documents. The Department seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing lack of RSP/MRP on imported parts and failure to produce import documents during inspection. The appellants sought provisional release, leading to a High Court order instructing the Department to decide on provisional release under Section 110A. The Department then allowed provisional release with stringent conditions, including substantial bond and bank guarantees. The appellants, finding these conditions onerous, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) for relief, which was denied, prompting the current appeal.

Upon review, it was revealed that the declared value of imported consignments had been enhanced at importation, ranging from 67% to 102% in various bill of entries. The goods were categorized under Retail Sale Price (RSP) and cleared after proper examination and verification. The detention of goods was found baseless as all seized auto parts were proven to be imported with valid documents or purchased legitimately. A show cause notice alleged undervaluation compared to a price list, but the Tribunal held that a price list alone cannot dictate transaction value, citing a Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the acceptance of discounts and commercial practices. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for misdeclaration in the declared value of imports.

In light of the above findings, the Tribunal deemed the provisional release conditions imposed by the Department as harsh and inappropriate. The Tribunal ordered the provisional release of the detained goods on revised conditions, requiring a reduced bond amount and immediate release upon compliance. The appeal was allowed, with the Department instructed to comply with the new release conditions by a specified date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to modify the provisional release conditions was based on the lack of merit in the allegations of misdeclaration and the excessive nature of the original release terms. The judgment sought to balance the interests of the appellants with the regulatory requirements, ensuring a fair outcome in the matter of the detained goods.