1995 (1) TMI 139 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of value of imported goods, application of exemption notification, misdeclaration of previous imports

Misdeclaration of value of imported goods:
The appeal was against an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, regarding the clearance of goods declared as Amorphous Boron Silicon steel strips. The appellant claimed clearance under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Part I 81 No. 818(ii) for the manufacture of electrical equipment. The Collector confirmed the charge of misdeclaration of value and ordered for confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty. The appellant argued that the show cause notice did not provide a basis for enhancement of value and lacked evidence. They contended that the comparison with goods imported in 1987 by another party was not valid due to differences in quantity and timing. The appellant emphasized that the burden of proof for undervaluation lies on the Department and that suspicions alone are not sufficient for a finding of misdeclaration. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the Department failed to provide corroborative evidence and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Application of exemption notification:
The appellant, being an actual user of the imported goods, sought the benefit of 100% export-oriented status for exemption from customs duty. They argued that they were willing to fulfill all relevant formalities. However, the Department contended that the appellant's unit was a Joint Venture and had misdeclared previous imports, justifying the rejection of the invoice value. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's unit was a separate legal entity from the alleged Joint Venture and was not required to declare previous imports of another entity. The Tribunal found no misdeclaration in this regard and emphasized that the Department could not introduce new allegations beyond the show cause notice.

Misdeclaration of previous imports:
The Department argued that the appellant's misdeclaration of previous imports influenced the price and justified the rejection of the invoice value. The appellant refuted this claim, stating that the unit was a separate legal entity and not part of the entity with alleged previous imports. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the misdeclaration charge was unfounded, and emphasized that the Department could not base its decision on assumptions without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief.