2024 (1) TMI 987 - AT - Customs

Valuation of the goods for export - As per the appellant, its total value is Rs.2,51,40,678/- whereas as per the Revenue, the value comes to Rs.1,07,39,500/- - rejection of declared value - Confiscation under Section 113 (ja) of the Customs Act, 1962 - redemption fine - penalties - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner has mechanically confirmed the lower adjudicating authority s order by simply placing reliance on the statement of the Manager of the firm and the statement dated 30.09.2022 of the appellant. The lower appellate authority did not take into consideration the following facts and the legal grounds while passing the impugned order. It is found that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R. Kishan Co. 2015 (11) TMI 1456 - CESTAT MUMBAI is on identical facts wherein also there was allegation of overvaluation and claiming undue benefits by the assessee. The entire investigation was flawed and faulty and therefore the appellant is also not liable for demurrage and the lower authority is directed to issue the demurrage waiver certificate to the appellant as contemplated under Regulation 6 (1) (L) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of export goods.
2. Rejection of declared value and redetermination by the authorities.
3. Rejection of duty drawback and ROSCTL benefits.
4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
5. Procedural lapses and issuance of show cause notice.
6. Investigation flaws and determination of market value.

Summary:

Valuation of Export Goods:
The appellant declared a total value of Rs. 2,51,40,678/- for the export goods, which was redetermined by the authorities to Rs. 1,07,39,500/- under Rule 6 of CVR 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not follow the proper valuation rules, especially Rule 4 and Rule 5, before jumping to Rule 6.

Rejection of Declared Value and Redetermination:
The Tribunal found that the impugned order confirmed the lower adjudicating authority's decision mechanically, relying on statements obtained under coercion. The Tribunal highlighted that no show cause notice was issued and the Customs Valuation Rules were not properly applied. The appellant procured goods from a GST registered unit, and the procurement price was close to the declared FOB value.

Rejection of Duty Drawback and ROSCTL Benefits:
The authorities rejected the appellant's claim for duty drawback of Rs. 5,33,080/- and ROSCTL benefits amounting to Rs. 12,40,165/-. The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on flawed investigation and unsupported statements.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The goods were confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- fine. Penalties were imposed on the appellant and an individual under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal set aside these penalties, citing the flawed investigation process.

Procedural Lapses and Issuance of Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal noted that the authorities did not issue a show cause notice, and statements were recorded under threat and coercion. This procedural lapse contributed to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order.

Investigation Flaws and Determination of Market Value:
The Tribunal criticized the investigation for not conducting market enquiries or comparing the declared value with NIDB data. Samples were not sent to relevant agencies for quality and price assessment. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the case of R. Kishan & Co., to emphasize the need for a proper valuation process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal with consequential relief, and directed the lower authority to issue a demurrage waiver certificate to the appellant, citing the flawed and faulty investigation. The appeal was allowed on these terms.

← Previous Next →