9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 316 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value - enhancement of the transaction value on the basis of NIDB data - Violation of the port restriction - HELD THAT - The goods imported by the appellant are, admittedly, not prohibited goods as per Rule 133 read with Rule 43-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 or any other law for the time being in force. It is also found that representative samples of the imported goods were drawn and the Assistant Drug Controller has issued No Objection for the release of the said goods. Further, the lower authorities have re-determined the value of the impugned goods based on the values declared by other importers without providing any basis for this decision and relying on certain imports which are clearly not contemporaneous in as much as the Bills of Entry pertaining to those imports were filed during the period November 2010, whereas the impugned import is of the year February 2011 and there is no material produced by the department that amounts over and above the invoice value were paid with respect to transaction value in question. It has been consistently held by the Tribunal that NIDB data alone is not sufficient for re-determination of value. The enhancing the transaction value on the basis of NIDB data is not sustainable in law and hence we set aside the enhancement. As far as the affixation of M.R.P and R.S.P price on the packages are concerned - It is found that this defect is curable one and would not amount to contravention of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 as held in the case of ABB LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2010 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT, BANGALORE cited by the appellant. Violation of the port restriction - HELD THAT - During the relevant time, the Tuticorin was not an authorized port for import of the impugned goods but subsequently, the said port has been authorized for import of the impugned goods. Therefore, there is a violation with regard to port restrictions. For that violation, it is found appropriate to impose a penalty on the appellant under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and all other penalties and fine imposed by the impugned order are dropped. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
The judgment involves issues related to the rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the re-determination of value of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962 based on intelligence findings, violation of Rules 43A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945, misdeclaration of values, and imposition of penalties. Rejection of Appeal and Value Determination: The appellant filed Bill of Entry for clearance of deodorants, declaring a value of Rs.16,27,025. The officers found violations of import rules, misdeclaration of values, and absence of MRP/RSP on packages. The lower authority re-determined the value at Rs.46,22,202, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties under Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the order citing transaction value, lack of basis for value enhancement, and non-prohibition of imported goods. The Tribunal found the re-determination based on NIDB data unsustainable, set aside the enhancement, and held the defect of missing MRP/RSP as curable. Prohibition of Goods and Port Restrictions: The imported goods were not prohibited under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Representative samples were cleared by the Assistant Drug Controller. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not prohibited and that the port of import, Tuticorin, was later authorized for the goods. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000 was imposed for the violation of port restrictions under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, while other penalties and fines were dropped.
|
