1994 (2) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of goods.
2. Under-declaration of value to evade customs duty.
3. Unauthorized importation due to invalid license.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Goods:
The importers declared the goods as "evaporators" for car air-conditioning, but upon inspection, the goods were found to be complete cooling units with blower assemblies. The Collector of Customs, Kandla, determined that the goods were indeed evaporator assemblies, which included more components than a simple evaporator. Despite this, it was found that there was no mis-declaration in respect of the description of the goods, but this fact was considered relevant for determining the correct value of the goods.

2. Under-declaration of Value:
The Collector of Customs found that the declared values of Singapore $60 per piece for Japanese origin goods and Singapore $45 per piece for Thai origin goods were significantly lower than the correct assessable values of Singapore $220 and Singapore $165 respectively. The importers' correspondence and documentation did not provide sufficient details or specifications to justify the declared prices. The Collector relied on comparable prices quoted by M/s. Precision Singapore to M/s. Sanden Vikas India Ltd., which were itemized and significantly higher. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings, noting that the department is not required to prove under-valuation with mathematical precision but must provide sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in its favor.

3. Unauthorized Importation:
The importers used a license that was later found to be invalid. The license, initially valid, was transferred and subsequently canceled by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in MJ Exports Ltd. v. CEGAT, which held that the opinion of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is binding. Consequently, the importation was deemed unauthorized, and the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and related regulations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Collector of Customs, Kandla, correctly rejected the invoice price and adopted a valid basis for fixing the revised value for customs duty. The appeal was largely rejected, but the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs, considering the totality of the circumstances.