9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of goods 2. Undervaluation of imported goods 3. Confiscation and penalty Detailed Analysis: 1. Misdeclaration of Goods: The Revenue alleged that the appellant misdeclared the imported goods by stating them as unbranded in the bill of entry, whereas the physical examination revealed them to be branded as "Citizen" with specific model numbers. The appellant argued that the term "CT" in the bill of entry indicated the "Citizen" brand and that the term "unbranded" was used to comply with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The Tribunal noted that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted a 100% examination and did not initially charge misdeclaration. The Tribunal referred to the case of Techno Marketing, where it was held that visible brand and model numbers negate the allegation of misdeclaration. Consequently, the Tribunal found no wilful misdeclaration on the appellant's part, as the brand and model were clearly visible upon examination. 2. Undervaluation of Imported Goods: The Revenue contended that the declared values were significantly lower than those of contemporaneous imports, based on data from the Directorate of Valuation (DOV). The appellant argued that their transaction value should be accepted as it was a bulk consignment, and the DOV data used for comparison involved much smaller quantities. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Eicher Tractors Ltd., which states that transaction value cannot be rejected unless specific exceptions apply. The Tribunal found no evidence of any relationship between the buyer and seller that would affect the transaction value. The Tribunal also cited the case of A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar & Sons, which held that lower transaction values for bulk purchases are acceptable. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide strong legal evidence to prove undervaluation and thus accepted the declared transaction value. 3. Confiscation and Penalty: The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty on the appellant, offering an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine. The Tribunal found that the charge of misdeclaration was not substantiated and that the transaction value was valid. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for the confiscation of goods or the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner, providing consequential relief to the appellant. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no evidence of wilful misdeclaration or undervaluation by the appellant. It upheld the declared transaction value and set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, providing relief to the appellant.
|
