2020 (2) TMI 565 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - used Toyota Land Cruiser of 1998 model - non-compliance with the pre-import condition - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value - tampering of the chassis number - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has considered all the aspects in detail and after considering all these grounds, the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any physical evidence of tampering, clarification of interested third party cannot be a sufficient reason for rejection of the invoice value. Further, in the first round of litigation this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to afford an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the signatory of the documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Further, we find that instead of the person who has signed the letter dated 19/12/2005 some other person was produced for cross-examination who during the cross-examination expressed ignorance about the contents of the letter dated 19/12/2005 and the reason for issuing the said letter. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of invoice value as assessable value
- Reduction of redemption fine and penalty
- Allegation of tampering with chassis number
- Cross-examination of witnesses
- Consideration of evidence by Commissioner (Appeals)

Assessment of Invoice Value as Assessable Value:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which accepted the invoice value as assessable value for a Toyota Land Cruiser imported by the respondent. The Department alleged tampering with the chassis number to mis-declare the year of manufacture. The Department conducted inquiries from manufacturers and found discrepancies. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the invoice value, stating that there was no physical evidence of tampering and rejected the Department's claims based on a report from an interested third party. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the Customs duty should be assessed as per the invoice value unless tampering is proven. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The impugned order reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 1,50,000 and the penalty to &8377; 50,000. This reduction was based on the consideration that the value would be less if the year of manufacture was taken as 1998 instead of 2003. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision and upheld the reduction, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Allegation of Tampering with Chassis Number:
The Department alleged that the importer tampered with the chassis number of the vehicle to evade Customs duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that there was no conclusive evidence of tampering. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of following the Supreme Court's rule that Customs duty should be assessed as per the invoice value unless tampering is proven. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that serious doubt alone is not sufficient to reject the invoice value without concrete evidence of tampering.

Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
During the proceedings, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the cross-examination process. The Tribunal found that the person produced for cross-examination was not familiar with the matter and failed to provide crucial evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of allowing the importer to cross-examine the signatory of the documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The failure to provide proper cross-examination opportunities was a factor considered in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Consideration of Evidence by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) carefully considered all aspects of the case, including the allegations of tampering with the chassis number and the valuation of the imported vehicle. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that without concrete evidence of tampering, the invoice value should be accepted. The Commissioner (Appeals) also highlighted the importance of not casually rejecting evidence, such as the Dubai Police Certificate of export. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and upheld the same, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.