9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, under-valuation, confiscation under Customs Act, 1962, appeal against order-in-original, import license validity, customs duty, import policy compliance, justification for confiscation.
In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, M/s. Hind Packaging Industry, Calcutta appealed against an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The appellant had imported audio magnetic tapes from Japan but declared a significantly lower value than the one determined by the authorities. The Collector alleged under-valuation, leading to a loss of duty and potential confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice, but failed to respond adequately, resulting in the imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods. The appeal challenged these decisions. During the proceedings, the appellant's representative argued that the valuation by the revenue authorities was incorrect, pointing out discrepancies in the dates of invoices and the basis for valuation. The appellant claimed compliance with the import policy and argued that the import license permitted the importation of the goods in question. On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the goods imported were banned and not covered by the import license, justifying the confiscation. The revenue based its valuation on similar goods' importation and challenged the appellant to provide evidence of any differences in the imported goods. After considering the arguments and examining the import license and policy, the Tribunal found that the importation was not covered by the license provided by the appellant. Referring to Section 14 of the Customs Act, which governs the valuation of goods, the Tribunal emphasized that the valuation should reflect the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold in international trade. The Tribunal noted the gap between the invoice dates and the lack of evidence supporting lower prices in May 1981 compared to October 1980. Additionally, the appellant failed to demonstrate any dissimilarities between the imported goods and the reference provided by the Collector. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's valuation and decision, confirming the confiscation and penalties imposed, and dismissed the appeal. Overall, the Tribunal's decision centered on the proper valuation of imported goods, compliance with import policies and licenses, and the justification for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of accurate valuation and evidence in customs proceedings.
|
