2023 (9) TMI 1388 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Import of new footwear - Non-declaration of imported goods as stock-lot - country of origin of goods - valuation of goods - HELD THAT - The OIO passed by the Adjudicating Authority who has passed the OIO after granting the Personal Hearing on 02/03/2011 which was attended by two Consultants on behalf of the Noticee. Non-declaration of imported goods as stock-lot - HELD THAT - The notice, at the time of submission of B/E and the concerned Invoice, did not declare the imported goods as stock-lot. But later on, they produced a copy of a correspondence with the seller of the goods where it had been mentioned that the goods they wanted to import were stock losts. Now, from the study of the case and reply of the notice, it is observed that the notice imported the goods taking the opportunity of economic recession in European Countries which were making hectic efforts to sell their products at a reduced price with some conditions - the factor that worked behind the import of shoes at a uniform rate in this case irrespective of size and quality was only to get the benefit of stock clearance at a reduced sale price by the exporter who faced certain problems related to market economy. This is not a case of sale of seconds or old goods. The notice also admitted in their written submission that they imported new footwear and also from the correspondence made by the importer with paolo Sanini Spol, the exporter, there are no mention that the footwear so imported as of second-hand quality. Country of origin of goods - HELD THAT - The noticee in the B/E declared the country of origin of the product as China. However, during joint examination of the consignment at ICD, it was observed by the departmental officers that there was only a nominal number of footwear that were of Chinese origin. Most of the goods were of Austrian origin - the notices therefore had misdeclared their goods as goods of Chinese origin. Valuation of goods - HELD THAT - The notice declared the goods as stock lot and submitted in the B/E the discounted value as transaction value. Since the goods have been, as discussed before, not stock lots but new ones and are liable to be sold in India as new ones, therefore, it is observed that the value shown in the B/E was not the real value of the imported goods but a very much reduced value and had no nexus with actual sale price of the goods. Therefore, transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) of CVR 07 was not applicable - residual Rule 9 of CVR 07 is applicable in this case. The Adjudicating Authority has gone into considerable details of the consignment imported and has passed a very considered Order justifying all his findings - there are no reason to interfere with the same - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-attendance of the Appellant at hearings, misdeclaration of goods regarding origin and value, and the Adjudicating Authority's decision to confirm the demand against the Appellant.

Non-Attendance of Appellant:
The Appellant failed to attend hearings granted in the past, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing their Appeal. Despite this, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter for disposal in the interest of justice, perusing the documents on record with the help of the Learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

Misdeclaration of Goods - Origin and Value:
Regarding the origin of the goods, the Appellant initially declared them as Chinese but upon inspection, it was found that the shoes were of Chinese, Italian, and Austrian origin. The Adjudicating Authority found that the Appellant imported brand-new footwear at a discounted price due to economic recession, misdeclaring the goods as stock-lots and goods of Chinese origin when most were Austrian. The declared value was also questioned as not reflecting the actual sale price, leading to the application of residual Rule 9 of CVR'07 for valuation.

Adjudicating Authority's Decision:
The Adjudicating Authority provided detailed findings justifying the demand confirmed against the Appellant, considering factors such as misdeclaration of goods, country of origin, and value. The Tribunal found the Authority's order well-reasoned and declined to interfere, ultimately dismissing the Appeal.