9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Confiscation of goods, Rejection of invoice value, Contemporaneous imports, Confiscation of R-22 gas filled cylinders, Imposition of penalty
In this case, the appellant imported a consignment of general items with discrepancies in the quantity of glass items and the country of origin declaration. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value, enhanced the assessable value, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the discrepancies were due to declaring goods in sets, not pieces, and that the goods were assorted from different countries. The appellant also provided evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. The Tribunal found the explanations plausible, accepted the declared transaction value, set aside the confiscation and value enhancement, but upheld the confiscation of R-22 gas filled cylinders due to licensing requirements. The penalty was set aside due to the value enhancement not being upheld. The appeal was allowed accordingly. The main issue in this case was the mis-declaration of goods, specifically regarding the quantity of glass items and the country of origin declaration. The Commissioner rejected the invoice value based on these discrepancies. The appellant argued that the discrepancies were due to declaring goods in sets rather than individual pieces, and that the goods were assorted from different countries. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanations plausible and accepted the declared transaction value, setting aside the confiscation and value enhancement. Another issue was the confiscation of goods and the imposition of penalties. The Commissioner had confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and a penalty under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty due to accepting the declared transaction value. However, the confiscation of R-22 gas filled cylinders was upheld as they required a license for importation, which the appellant did not have. The rejection of the invoice value by the Commissioner was also a significant issue in this case. The Commissioner rejected the invoice value due to discrepancies in the quantity of glass items and the country of origin declaration. The Tribunal found that the appellant's explanations regarding declaring goods in sets and the assortment of goods from different countries were reasonable, leading to the acceptance of the declared transaction value. The issue of contemporaneous imports was raised, with the Commissioner stating there were no such imports of identical goods during the relevant period. However, the appellant presented evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods, which the adjudicating authority had disregarded. The Tribunal found the evidence produced by the appellant credible and relevant, supporting the acceptance of the declared transaction value. Overall, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting the declared transaction value, setting aside the confiscation and penalty, but upholding the confiscation of R-22 gas filled cylinders due to licensing requirements. The decision was pronounced on 10-12-2004.
|
