2019 (4) TMI 1186 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - certain items were not declared - mis-declaration of description - it appeared that the main PCB for DVB with connector was actually DVB C MPEG-2 Card which was used in Set Top Boxes for converting the source signal into contents in a form that can be displayed on TV Screen and other display device - Power Supply for DTH - rejection of declared value - NIDB Data for contemporaneous import. HELD THAT - The imported goods are electronic populated printed circuit board. A lay man will not be able to decide the nature of the product and the possible use for such products, by casual inspection. Reference to website cannot only be the basis for loading value of imported goods and demanding differential duty - the goods, which are still not cleared out of Customs charge, will need to be examined and a suitable expert opinion obtained as to the nature of the goods. Power Supply for DTH - The investigating agency has concluded that the imported goods were SMPS Power Supply Board used for control power supply in STB - HELD THAT - In this case also, a lay man will not be able to decide the nature of the product and the possible use for such products. Reference to website cannot be the only basis for loading the value of imported goods and demanding differential duty - the goods which are still not cleared out of Customs charge, will need to be examined and a suitable expert opinion obtained as to the nature of the goods. Thereafter, proper valuations of the goods are required to be re-determined in the light of the Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules., 2007. The issue is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a denovo order after getting the goods examined by an expert for taking opinion as to the exact nature of the goods - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on discrepancies in declaration.
2. Confiscation and redemption fine under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Differential duty demand and imposition of penalties.
4. Challenge to valuation and description of imported goods.
5. Expert opinion requirement for determining the nature and valuation of goods.

Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods based on discrepancies in declaration
The case involved discrepancies in the declaration of imported electronics goods, leading to a detailed examination by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The DRI found that certain items were not declared accurately, and upon investigation, corrected the valuation of the goods based on comparable import prices. The appellants contested the revised valuation, arguing that the goods imported were different from those for which values were adopted by the Revenue. The dispute centered around the correct description and valuation of items like the "Power Supply for DTH" and "Main PCB for DVB with connector."

Issue 2: Confiscation and redemption fine under Customs Act, 1962
The adjudicating authority, based on the findings of the DRI, ordered for the confiscation of the imported goods under Sections 111 (l) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option for redemption was provided upon payment of a fine. Additionally, a differential duty was demanded, and penalties were imposed on the importer and an individual associated with the company.

Issue 3: Challenge to valuation and description of imported goods
The appellants challenged the valuation and description of the imported goods, emphasizing that the goods were intended for Direct to Home (DTH) application and not as valued by the Revenue. The argument focused on discrepancies between the actual imported goods and the items for which values were adopted by the Revenue. The appellants presented invoices and Bills of Entry to support their case for accepting the declared values.

Issue 4: Expert opinion requirement for determining the nature and valuation of goods
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the impugned order, set aside the decision and remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the authority to obtain expert opinion to determine the exact nature of the goods and reevaluate the valuation in accordance with Customs Act provisions. The importance of expert examination and sharing the basis for valuation with the appellants for rebuttal was highlighted for a fair determination of the goods' value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for expert opinion to ascertain the nature and valuation of the imported goods accurately. The case highlighted the importance of correct declaration and valuation of goods for customs purposes, ensuring fair treatment and compliance with Customs Act regulations.

← Previous Next →