9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in this case include undervaluation of imported goods, jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to review orders, comparison of contemporaneous imports, and determination of assessable value based on evidence. Undervaluation of Imported Goods: The appellants imported YKK Zip fasteners from Taiwan, which were found undervalued by the Customs Department. The Department alleged that the goods were undervalued based on a contemporaneous import from Singapore at a higher price. A show cause notice was issued to the importers for contravention of Customs Act and Import and Export Control Act. The Collector of Customs confirmed the charges of undervaluation and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and penalty. The appellants challenged this order on grounds of jurisdiction and merit. Jurisdiction and Review Power: The appellants argued that the Assistant Collector's actions did not constitute a review order, and the Collector had the power to review and determine the assessable value. The Collector's order as an adjudicating authority was deemed within jurisdiction. The appellants' contention on jurisdiction was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal. Comparison of Contemporaneous Imports: The Tribunal considered whether the Department's evidence was sufficient to prove misdeclaration and under valuation. The Collector compared the price of Japanese origin Zip fasteners with Taiwan origin goods, noting a significant difference in quantity. The burden of proof for under valuation lay on the Department, requiring corroborated evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish under valuation, and concluded that the assessable value should be redetermined based on comparable imports at a higher price. Determination of Assessable Value: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The Member (T) agreed with the conclusions drawn by the Member (Judicial), emphasizing that the difference in the country of origin was not material for valuation if the goods were of the same brand and quality. The Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants due to lack of conclusive evidence to prove under valuation, ultimately allowing the appeal.
|
