2019 (4) TMI 1092 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Stainless Steel Seamless Pipes Grade 304 - enhancement of assessment value - rejection of declared value - reliance placed on contemporaneous imports - case of Revenue is that the goods are of prime quality - HELD THAT - We are not in position to agree with the claim of revenue that the goods are prime quality goods confirming to AISI 303/304. If the manner in which revenue has proceeded to hold the defective stainless steel pipes to be of prime quality on the basis visual inspection report we have no doubt that there can be many more tragedies akin to Bhopal Gas Tragedy in this country. Can such defective pipes which do not confirm to the prescribed standard be used for the same purpose for which certified prime goods of that standard are used. Revenue has further gone on to value the said goods as prime quality goods of the same standard to which the test report of Deputy Chief Chemist CRCL is itself contrary. The approach of revenue is definitely erroneous and cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as defective.
2. Rejection of declared value and reassessment of goods.
3. Imposition of differential duty, penalty, and fine.
4. Validity of test reports and certificates.
5. Allegations of procedural irregularities in appellate proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods as Defective:
The primary issue was whether the imported goods, described as "Stainless Steel secondary Defective Seamless Pipes Grade 304 mix size" in the Bill of Entry, were misdeclared. The Commissioner (Appeal) and Adjudicating Authority held that the goods were prime and not defective, based on the examination reports and Chartered Engineer’s certificate. The appellant contended that the goods were indeed defective, supported by the supplier's declaration and test reports from Deputy Chief Chemist (DYCC) and VJTI, which did not confirm the goods to AISI 304 standards.

2. Rejection of Declared Value and Reassessment of Goods:
The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value of the goods and finalized the provisional assessment based on a unit value of ?145.11 per kg under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant argued that the reassessment was incorrect and that the goods should be valued as per the declared value, supported by the supplier's invoice and contract.

3. Imposition of Differential Duty, Penalty, and Fine:
The adjudicating authority confirmed a differential duty of ?5,49,851/- along with interest, confiscated the goods valued at ?29,05,392/-, and imposed a penalty of ?5,49,851/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a redemption fine of ?6,00,000/- was imposed. The appellant contested these penalties, claiming that the fine and penalty were arbitrary and unjustified.

4. Validity of Test Reports and Certificates:
The case relied heavily on various test reports and certificates:
- Examination Report by SIIB (X) officers.
- Chartered Engineer’s certificate stating the goods were prime.
- DYCC's test reports indicating the goods did not conform to AISI 304 standards.
- VJTI's report suggesting the goods were not in accordance with AISI standards but aligned with JIS S303 grade.

The appellant argued that the DYCC and VJTI reports supported their claim that the goods were defective, while the revenue relied on the Chartered Engineer’s visual inspection report.

5. Allegations of Procedural Irregularities in Appellate Proceedings:
The appellant claimed that the appellate proceedings were conducted in a routine and stereotype manner, without proper consideration of the evidence. They argued that the Commissioner (Appeal) did not fairly assess the evidence and wrongly concluded that the appellant agreed with the department's stand.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the reports from DYCC and VJTI indicated the goods did not conform to AISI 304 standards, supporting the appellant's claim of the goods being defective. The visual inspection reports alone were insufficient to classify the goods as prime quality. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Indian Steel Corporation and the Tribunal's decision in Bansal Industries, emphasizing the importance of adhering to test reports over visual inspections. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the revenue's approach and found no merit in the charge of misdeclaration.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeal) and Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal held that the goods were not of prime quality as claimed by the revenue, and the penalties and fines imposed were unjustified. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.