9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
(a) Misdeclaration of goods (b) Requirement of import license (c) Authenticity of declared transaction value (d) Determination of fair price for customs duty (e) Importation in the name of a fictitious firm Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: (a) Misdeclaration of Goods: At the time of clearance, the importer submitted an invoice from M/s. Fateh Marketing and Trading P. Ltd., Singapore, without providing a letter of credit or contract. The Department found discrepancies between the invoice and the bill of entry. The goods were described merely as old and used diesel engines, but detailed examination revealed they had capacities ranging from 1000 cc to 1800 cc and were fitted with various components, indicating they were meant for motor vehicles, not trawlers. The importers failed to substantiate their claim that the parts could be used interchangeably for trawlers. Therefore, the adjudicating authority's charge of misdeclaration of description was upheld. (b) Requirement of Import License: The appellants claimed that the goods did not appear in the negative list of the Import and Export Policy 1992-97. However, Paragraph 29 of the policy requires a license for all second-hand goods, other than capital goods. Since the imported items were old and used diesel engines and not capital goods, their importation required a specific license or public notice, which was not provided. Consequently, the importation was deemed unauthorized, and the goods were liable to confiscation. (c) Authenticity of Declared Transaction Value: The Department conducted inquiries regarding the fair price of used diesel engines based on contemporaneous imports at Bombay and Madras. The declared invoice price was significantly lower than the values found in these inquiries. The appellants' reference to other adjudication orders and commercial prices was not accepted as they failed to provide evidence that the low price was a result of successful negotiation. Therefore, the invoice value was not considered genuine or reflective of the normal course of business in international trade. (d) Determination of Fair Price for Customs Duty: The assessable value determined by the adjudicating authority was based on contemporaneous imports and was found to be reasonable. The exceptionally low price declared in the invoice was rejected, as it did not reflect the price available to other importers at the relevant time. (e) Importation in the Name of a Fictitious Firm: Enquiries with Bombay Customs revealed that no firm by the name Shehla Enterprises existed at the given address, which was a Government Quarter allotted to one Munani. No person named Saghir Ahmed was found at the premises. The appellants' claim that the proprietor might have temporarily shifted was not supported by evidence. Thus, the finding that the goods were imported in the name of a fictitious firm was upheld. Judgment: The importers misdeclared the description and other material particulars of the goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). The goods required a valid import license, failing which they were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). The declared invoice value was not genuine and was substantially lower than the acceptable value for customs duty purposes. The assessable value determined by the adjudicating authority was reasonable. The goods were imported in the name of a fictitious firm. The order of absolute confiscation and penalty on Saghir Ahmed was upheld. However, the penalty on M/s. Shehla Enterprises was set aside, as the sole proprietor and the proprietary concern are considered one entity. The impugned order was confirmed, and the appeal was rejected.
|
