9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reassessment of imported goods based on declared price discrepancy. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty. 3. Discrepancy in pricing of imported Arsenic Trioxide. 4. Request for remand for de novo decision. 5. Consideration of evidence and correspondence in determining valuation. 6. Setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 7. Request for detention certificate. Analysis: 1. The appellants imported Arsenic Trioxide from China, declaring an invoice price of US $305 per metric ton (PMT). However, customs authorities rejected this price, considering a previous import at a higher price of US $550 PMT. Consequently, the goods were reassessed at the higher price, and the Deputy Collector confiscated the goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal challenging the reassessment and penalties imposed. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the goods remained uncleared due to the discrepancy in valuation. They contended that the imported material's purity level of 98% justified the invoiced price, citing quotations for higher purity grades of Arsenic Trioxide from the same supplier at varying prices. They also highlighted instances of similar imports at other ports where invoice prices were accepted, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting underhand payments. The Department of Revenue's representative suggested remanding the matter for a fresh decision considering the appellant's submissions and other import instances. 3. Upon reviewing the submissions, the tribunal acknowledged the correspondence indicating potential price variations based on purity levels and references to comparable import prices at around US $350 to US $375 PMT in subsequent periods. Notably, the Deputy Collector's order acknowledged the absence of evidence supporting additional payments to the supplier. After examining the evidence, including Bills of Entry presented during the hearing, the tribunal concluded that the 1993 imports were not undervalued at the declared price of US $305 PMT. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. 4. Following the decision to set aside the order, the appellant's counsel requested the issuance of a detention certificate by customs authorities. While the tribunal declined to direct the issuance, they indicated that the order's annulment, coupled with the acceptance of the declared price without evidence of surreptitious payments, should prompt the Customs House to consider any future detention certificate requests from the appellants. This comprehensive analysis outlines the issues raised, arguments presented, evidence considered, and the tribunal's decision in the context of the legal judgment.
|
