1995 (6) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the value of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Acceptance of transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988.

Summary:

1. Determination of the value of imported goods:
The appellants imported Canon Colour Laser Copiers CLC 300 and declared their value based on invoices from the suppliers. The Customs authorities suspected the declared value as the goods were imported from a trader and not directly from the manufacturer. The Customs authorities conducted an investigation and found that the goods were undervalued based on proforma invoices and quotations from other suppliers. The Collector of Customs rejected the declared transaction value and determined the value of the goods at Rs. 8,14,971/- per piece, considering the price of identical goods and adding freight and insurance charges.

2. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 16,29,942/- CIF under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the misdeclaration of value by the importers. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

3. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for gross undervaluation of the imported goods to evade payment of duty.

4. Acceptance of transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988:
The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted as per Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. However, the Tribunal observed that the declared value was suspect due to the involvement of a trader and the absence of a manufacturer's invoice. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to reject the transaction value and determine the value based on quotations for identical goods. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those of the Hon. Supreme Court, which supported the rejection of transaction value in similar circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, confirming the enhanced value of the imported goods, the confiscation under Section 111(m), the redemption fine, and the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was dismissed.