9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of classification, valuation, and quantity of imported goods. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Enhancement of value of goods without proper basis. Issue 1: Misdeclaration of classification, valuation, and quantity of imported goods: The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of "Velour" classifiable under Tariff Heading 6002.43 but the goods were found to be "Pile Fabric" of different colors, with a total quantity short by 898 Kgs. The value had been declared on the lower side, leading to suspicion of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority assessed the goods at a higher value based on contemporaneous imports from the same country of origin. The appellant failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice, and the authority held that the description given was commercial, not technical. The authority confiscated the goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962: The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to misdeclaration of value, classification, and quantity of goods. However, the appellant was given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The appellant challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) but was unsuccessful, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. Issue 3: Enhancement of value of goods without proper basis: The appellant contested the enhancement of the value of goods to US $ 3.06 per Kg., arguing that there was no basis for this increase. The department had relied on contemporaneous invoices for similar goods from the same country of origin, but the appellant claimed that the department did not provide a copy of the relied-upon invoice. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the value enhancement, stating that the department had a basis for the increase. However, during the Tribunal hearing, it was noted that no invoice containing the relevant price had been produced, and without establishing a case for the price's applicability to the imported goods, the value enhancement was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. This detailed analysis covers the misdeclaration of goods, confiscation under the Customs Act, and the enhancement of value issues addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi.
|
