2022 (11) TMI 762 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - polished marble slab - mis-declaration of goods for evasion of duty of customs - rejection of declared value post the 100% examination of the consignment imported by the appellant - rule 12 of the Valuation Rules - HELD THAT - No doubt in terms of Rule 3 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as the Valuation Rules) read with Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, it is the transaction value of such goods i.e. the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation or, as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the same, which has to be accepted. Reverting to the facts of the case, there is appellant s own letter dated 13.06.2017 acknowledging that the shipment was imported while declaring the shipment of polished marble slabs (CTH) 68022190. There is sufficient acceptance that on 100% second time check by the competent officers that instead 1202.5 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs only 140 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs were found in the shipment. In addition, there were found granite slabs of 1470 Sq. Mtr. approx. quantity, which were not declared in the Bill of Entry - Apparently and admittedly no protest was raised by the appellant. A speaking order was passed by the officer on 07-07-2017 based on the examination report and the explanation by the appellant. In the another decision of this Tribunal in the case of VIKAS SPINNERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW 2000 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI , it was held clearly that the enhanced value once settled and duty having been paid accordingly without protest, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and voluntarily accepted, and accordingly payment of duty made discharges the burden of the department to establish declared value to be incorrect. There are no infirmity in the order under challenge. As a result, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of declared value, mis-declaration of goods, assessment of customs duty, waiver of Show Cause Notice, imposition of redemption fine, legality of penalty, applicability of DGFT Notification, visual examination of goods, acceptance of mistake by the appellant, legal principles governing customs valuation.

Analysis:
The case involves the rejection of the declared value of imported goods, specifically polished marble slabs, due to the presence of unreported granite slabs in the consignment. The appellant had filed a bill of entry based on import documents and invoice declaring the import of polished marble slabs. However, upon examination, a significant quantity of granite slabs was found, leading to doubts regarding the accuracy of the declared value. The customs authorities re-assessed the value of the goods and imposed additional customs duty based on the reassessed value.

The appellant accepted the mistake and expressed willingness to pay the differential duty, seeking a waiver of the Show Cause Notice. The Order-in-Original rejected the declared value, confiscated the goods, and imposed a redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the visual examination was insufficient to conclude the presence of mixed goods and that the redemption fine was disproportionate. They contended that there was no evidence of intentional mis-declaration and the reassessed value was unjustified. The appellant relied on specific case laws to support their arguments.

The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, highlighted the appellant's acknowledgment of the error in declaring only polished marble slabs and subsequent payment of the differential duty. They emphasized the presence of unreported granite slabs, which were subject to restrictions under the DGFT Notification due to their value being below the specified threshold.

The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of customs valuation rules and relevant legal principles. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal held that once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value and paid the duty without protest, they were estopped from challenging it later. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the declared value, the legality of the reassessed duty, and the imposition of penalties. The case underscores the importance of accurate declaration of imported goods, adherence to customs regulations, and the consequences of accepting assessed values without protest.