Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1996 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1996 (8) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, misdeclaration of value, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a case where appellants imported a consignment of Bolt Rings and Chain from Hongkong. The Additional Collector accepted the declared value of Bolt Rings but increased the value of Chain based on comparison with brass scrap prices. The main dispute centered around the valuation of the imported Chain due to misdeclaration of value, leading to confiscation and penalties.

The appellants argued that since both Bolt Rings and Chain were covered by the same invoice and the value of Bolt Rings was accepted, the value of Chain should also be accepted. They contended that unless special circumstances exist, the invoice value should be considered valid. The burden of disproving the invoice price lies on the Department, which can be done by comparing with values of similar imports.

The Tribunal referred to past cases where misdeclaration of goods led to rejection of invoice value. Inadequate or misleading descriptions in import documents can affect the reliability of invoice prices. In this case, the import documents lacked crucial details about the goods, making the invoice price unreliable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate descriptions in import documents for proper valuation.

Regarding the valuation method used by the Additional Collector, the Tribunal found it reasonable despite the appellants' objections. The Collector's assumption that the Chain was made from Brass Scrap and the calculation of manufacturing cost at 100% were deemed acceptable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the value determined by the Additional Collector.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Additional Collector, stating that the deliberate misdeclaration of value justified the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the valuation and consequences determined by the authorities.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates