2019 (4) TMI 912 - AT - Customs

Evasion of ADD - re-export parts of calculators found in Semi Knocked Down - according to the Department, on assembling, they resulted in fully functional calculators - Held that - The calculators in SKD condition were assembled in the presence of the Proprietor of the appellant and it was admitted by him that after assembly fully functional calculators came into existence. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had imported calculators in SKD condition with a view to evade Anti-Dumping Duty since Anti Dumping Duty is levied on finished calculators. However, when this fact was detected by the Department, the Appellant made a request for re-export of the goods. This request was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority and in our considered view for good and valid reasons. The Appellant had imported calculators in SKD condition with a view to assemble them as fully functional calculators to avoid Anti-Dumping Duty. It cannot, therefore, be permitted to re-export the calculators in SKD condition when the Department detained the goods and after examination concluded that after assembly, fully functional calculators came into existence. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the request for re-export of parts of calculators in Semi Knocked Down (SKD) condition.
2. Mis-declaration of description, value, and quantity of imported goods.
3. Calculation and imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.
4. Determination of assessable value and customs duty.
5. Confiscation and imposition of penalties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Request for Re-export of Parts of Calculators in SKD Condition:
The appellant's request to re-export parts of calculators in SKD condition was rejected by both the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant had deliberately mis-declared the description, value, and quantity of the goods to evade Anti-Dumping Duty. The Authority noted that the parts could be easily assembled into fully functional calculators, which attracted Anti-Dumping Duty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the appellant had imported functional calculators under the guise of parts, and thus, the request for re-export was rightly rejected.

2. Mis-declaration of Description, Value, and Quantity of Imported Goods:
The appellant had declared 9800 pieces of complete calculators and paid Anti-Dumping Duty on them. However, upon examination, only 8100 pieces were found, and parts of calculators in SKD condition were also discovered. The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had mis-declared the goods to evade duty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirmed that the appellant had imported functional calculators disguised as parts, which was an attempt to evade Anti-Dumping Duty.

3. Calculation and Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The Department conducted a market enquiry and revised the assessable value of the consignment to ?61,75,750, against the declared value of ?13,38,319. The revised customs duty was calculated at ?18,18,202, and the Anti-Dumping Duty on the assembled calculators was determined to be ?44,43,606. The appellant admitted that the parts, when assembled, formed fully functional calculators, which attracted Anti-Dumping Duty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty, stating that the parts were essentially functional calculators.

4. Determination of Assessable Value and Customs Duty:
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value of ?13,38,318.75 and reassessed the value at ?61,75,750. The differential customs duty of ?14,66,962 was confirmed. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) directed the Adjudicating Authority to separate the value of parts of calculators in SKD condition from the remaining goods and rework the customs duty liability accordingly. The enhancement of the value was set aside, and the declared value was accepted for assessment.

5. Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties:
The goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them on payment of customs duty and a redemption fine of ?12 lakhs. A penalty of ?4 lakhs was imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) and another ?4 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to ?3 lakhs and the penalty to ?1 lakh under each section. The appellant was given the option to release the confiscated goods upon payment of the dues.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the request for re-export of calculators in SKD condition, confirming that the appellant had imported functional calculators disguised as parts to evade Anti-Dumping Duty. The declared value was accepted for assessment, and the penalties were reduced. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Customs was affirmed.

← Previous Next →