2004 (6) TMI 93 - AT - Customs

Marble blocks - Valuation (Customs) - Enhancement of value - Contemporaneous import - Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported Marble Blocks.
2. Valuation of the imported Marble Blocks.
3. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Marble Blocks:
The primary issue was whether the Marble Blocks imported by the appellant from Italy and Oman with one side polished should be classified as polished Marble Blocks or rough Marble Blocks under the Import Export Policy for 2002-2007. The Commissioner classified the Marble Blocks as rough Marble Blocks under Heading 2515.12. The appellant contended that the blocks should be classified under Chapter 68 as they had been worked upon and polished on one side. The appellant argued that classification should be based on the imported goods' condition, not their end-use, and cited the overseas customs department's classification under Heading 6802.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant headings and explanatory notes under Chapters 25 and 68. It was concluded that merely polishing one side of the Marble Blocks does not qualify them to be classified under Heading 6802. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification under Heading 2515, stating that the blocks were presented in mass and had not undergone sufficient processing to be considered "worked monumental or building stone."

2. Valuation of the Imported Marble Blocks:
The second issue was the valuation of the Marble Blocks. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value declared by the appellant and assessed the value at US $305 PMT based on other Bills of Entry. The appellant argued that there was no justification for rejecting the declared value and that the Commissioner did not provide any material evidence showing that the goods covered by the referenced Bills of Entry were of the same quality as those imported by the appellant.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's complaint, noting that the Commissioner had not provided a satisfactory basis for rejecting the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department lacked the expertise to assess the quality of Marble Blocks and should adopt a legally acceptable procedure for such assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's valuation and upheld the transaction value declared by the appellant.

3. Quantum of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The appellant contended that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive compared to similar cases where the Tribunal had imposed lower fines and penalties. The appellant referenced past Tribunal decisions where fines and penalties were significantly lower.

The Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's contention, citing previous cases where higher fines and penalties were upheld. The Tribunal noted that the import of rough Marble Blocks without the required licence justified the imposition of fines and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the percentage applied by the Commissioner in determining the quantum of redemption fine and penalty but ordered that the same percentage be applied to the reassessed transaction value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the imported Marble Blocks should be classified under Heading 2515 and assessed based on the declared transaction value. The Tribunal did not reduce the percentage applied by the Commissioner for the redemption fine and penalty but ordered a re-computation based on the reassessed value. The Tribunal also noted that if the goods are classified under Heading 2515, the importer would not be liable for additional customs duty (CVD) as no excise duty is leviable on Marble Blocks of Chapter 25. The appeal was disposed of with instructions for re-computation of duty, redemption fine, and penalty, and any excess amount paid by the importer to be refunded.

← Previous Next →