2023 (7) TMI 1193 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Petrol Car (unused) - used split air conditioner compressors without gas - rejection of declared value - redetermination of the value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant was not put to notice with regard to the issue of enhancing the declared value of the car. Thus without having an opportunity to defend the enhancement of the value of the car as decided by the original authority the Commissioner (Appeals) has revised the value of the car to demand differential duty. It is brought out from the records that the original authority had accepted the value declared for the car being a second-hand car and not a popular branded car. The declared value of the air conditioner compressors was rejected and re-determined as USD 300 (C F). Though the Department has not filed any appeal against such order the Commissioner (Appeals) has without giving any notice to the appellant enhanced the value of the car so as to demand differential duty. In the absence of an appeal filed by the Department the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have interfered with the findings with regard to the valuation - the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) revising the value of the car requires to be set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs.25, 000/- - the redemption fine of Rs.25, 000/- or the reduced penalty of Rs.25, 000/- not disturbed - impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the enhancement of the value of the imported car - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the valuation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, and the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to revise the value of the goods without a cross-appeal by the Department.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry for the clearance of a car and air conditioner compressors. The Chartered Engineer certified the compressors as used and not reconditioned, valuing them at USD 300. The car's year of manufacture was not available, but the appellant provided details of its purchase and depreciation, resulting in a value slightly higher than the declared value. The original authority accepted the car's declared value but rejected the compressors' value, ordering confiscation of the car and compressors for violation of import conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but revised the car's value, directing the adjudicating authority to calculate the differential duty.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The original authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for importing a second-hand car and used compressors in violation of import conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the redemption fine. The appellant challenged the revised valuation of the car and the imposition of differential duty.

Authority of Commissioner (Appeals) to Revise Value Without Cross-Appeal:
The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded authority by revising the car's value without a cross-appeal by the Department. The appellant was not given notice or an opportunity to defend the enhanced value, as decided by the original authority. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to enhance the car's value, stating that in the absence of a Department appeal, the valuation should not have been interfered with.