9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of under-valuation of imported goods. 2. Burden of proof on department in case of under-valuation. 3. Consideration of quality of imported goods in determining value. 4. Reliance on invoice price without details of quality. 5. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. 6. Assessment of penalty for mis-declaration of value. Analysis: 1. The case involved an allegation of under-valuation of imported goods by the customs department. The appellants imported Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Moulding powder and declared a value of US $ 650 per M.T. However, the customs issued a show cause notice threatening to increase the value to US $ 4,810 per M.T. The Assistant Collector then fixed the value at US $ 1,455 per M.T. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellants for mis-declaration. 2. The appellants argued that the department did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of under-valuation. They contended that the value declared was genuine, supported by the invoice, and cited previous judgments to support their plea that invoice value should be accepted unless proven incorrect by the department. The burden of proof in a charge of under-valuation was emphasized, placing it squarely on the department. 3. The customs department maintained that the appellants did not provide details of the quality of the imported goods, making it difficult to estimate the actual value. The department relied on various price points received from the Madras Custom House to determine the value since the quality or grade of the goods was unknown. The Collector decided to adopt the lowest of the three prices available due to the lack of quality details. 4. The tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and found that the appellants had not disclosed the quality of the imported goods. However, based on the evidence produced by the appellants, two invoices for similar goods dated closest to the importation date were considered. The tribunal ordered the value of US $ 750 per M.T. to be adopted for the present importation. 5. One member of the tribunal disagreed with the decision, emphasizing the importance of declaring all particulars, including quality, grade, and value of goods. The member raised concerns about assuming the quality of the imported goods and absolving the assessee of the obligation to provide full details. Previous judgments cited by the appellants were deemed inapplicable in this case. 6. The tribunal ultimately set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants for mis-declaration of value, citing a lack of evidence to prove that an offense was committed under the Customs Act. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with one member upholding the order and penalty, while another member disagreed and dismissed the appeal.
|
