2023 (4) TMI 615 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - modified Tapioca Starch - rejection of assessable value - redetermination of value under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules - wilful mis-statements of facts or not - extended period of limitation - seeking refund of deposit made during investigation - HELD THAT - It is evident from the SCN that the demand in dispute is regarding the past consignments which were already cleared as per the declared values by the respondent. The assessment, therefore, attained finality. Once the assessment attained finality, it can be either appealed against to the Commissioner (Appeals) by either side or a notice under section 28 can be issued by the Revenue. While appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) can be for any aspect of the assessment, a notice under section 28 can be issued only to recover duty not paid, short paid or erroneously refunded or not levied and it can be issued only by the proper officer . The notice can be issued within the normal period of limitation of one year under section 28 (1) from the date of clearance of goods for home consumption or, within the extended period of limitation of 5 years if the short payment or non-payment is because of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. If the SCN is issued alleging non-payment or short payment of duty, the basis of such an allegation must be on sound footing, backed by evidence. There is nothing in the SCN and in the grounds of appeal in the present case, which shows that the declared value was incorrect apart from the statements. The statements, as summarized, only show that the respondent was ignorant of many factors, but it does not establish that the respondent had mis-declared the value. It is also evident that there was no chemical analysis report nor was any sample drawn to allege mis-declaration of the nature of the goods. Therefore, we do not find even a shred of evidence in this case to confirm the demand as proposed in the SCN. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner was correct in dropping the SCN and the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in upholding the decision in the impugned order. Deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs by the respondent during the investigation - HELD THAT - It can only be called as deposit. The mere fact that some amount has been deposited during investigation does not establish in any way the case of the Department. Needless to say since the respondent has succeeded, the amount so deposited should have been refunded to him, if it has not already been refunded. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of assessable value and re-determination under Customs Valuation Rules, differential duty recovery, and penalty imposition based on alleged mis-declaration of imported goods.

Rejection of Assessable Value and Re-Determination:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal rejecting the appeal and upholding the order of the Joint Commissioner regarding the imported goods declared as modified Tapioca Starch. The respondent imported goods declared as modified Tapioca Starch but upon examination, it was found to be Tapioca Starch. The Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the assessable value of past consignments under Customs Valuation Rules and re-determine the value. However, the Original Authority found insufficient material to reject the declared value and dropped the proceedings, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Alleged Mis-Declaration and Differential Duty Recovery:
The Revenue contended that the respondent willfully mis-declared the import value to evade duty, citing lack of documentation and low declared prices compared to industry rates. The Revenue alleged that the respondent's ignorance of certain factors, coupled with the absence of chemical analysis reports, indicated an intent to evade customs duty. Despite the respondent depositing Rs. 10 lakhs during the investigation, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims of mis-declaration or evasion. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of sound evidence to support allegations of non-payment or short payment of duty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and granting consequential benefits to the respondent. The Tribunal found no evidence to confirm the Revenue's demand for differential duty recovery based on alleged mis-declaration. Additionally, the deposit made by the respondent during the investigation was deemed insufficient to establish the Department's case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support duty-related allegations and emphasized the importance of adhering to Customs Valuation Rules in determining assessable value for imported goods.