9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Confiscation of goods, duty demand, penalty imposition, under-valuation of imported goods.
Confiscation of Goods and Under-Valuation Charge: The impugned order confiscated a consignment of "Glass for Corrective Spectacles Lenses" and "Assorted White Optical Blanks," demanded duty on another consignment, and imposed penalties on the importer and their Directors for alleged under-valuation of the imported goods. The goods were purchased from a Hong Kong supplier but shipped directly from China. The Customs authorities relied on an invoice obtained from a third party, alleging that the declared value was lower than the actual price. The importer contested the charge, arguing that the third-party invoice was not genuine. However, the impugned order upheld the under-valuation charge based on Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, stating that the importer failed to provide the invoice from the Chinese manufacturer, as required. Authentication of Invoice and Lack of Credible Evidence: During the hearing, it was revealed that the copy of the invoice relied upon was not authenticated by any Customs officer, contrary to the observations in the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner's letter confirmed the non-availability of the original invoice and acknowledged the lack of credible evidence to substantiate the under-valuation charge. Both parties admitted the absence of permissible evidence, such as pricing of similar goods, to support the allegation. The reliance on Rule 10(1) regarding the invoice of the manufacturer was deemed irrelevant due to the unavailability of the manufacturer's invoice in the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the charge of under-valuation was not proven with credible evidence and set aside the impugned order, providing relief to the appellants.
|
