9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Customs valuation, mis-declaration, confiscation, penalty imposition, evidence consideration, rule application, market enquiry disclosure
In this case, the Appellants imported data cartridges for computers, which were found to consist of two different models with varying capacities. The Customs House suspected undervaluation as the invoice did not differentiate between the two models, leading to further investigations. The Customs Valuation Rule was invoked to enhance the assessable value based on previous imports and market prices. The Commissioner passed an order enhancing the value, confiscating the goods, and imposing fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellants argued that the Commissioner did not consider evidence of comparable value presented by them, including local market prices and manufacturer invoices. They contended that the valuation was not solely based on the Valuation Rule and that previous import values should not dictate the current assessment. The Department reiterated the reasoning behind the valuation, citing previous imports and technical specifications of the cartridges. The Tribunal upheld the valuation for one model based on the Appellants' previous imports and other adjudication orders. However, for the second model, a remand was ordered due to lack of disclosure of market enquiry details and the presentation of new evidence by the Appellants. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the valuation based on the additional evidence provided, with a reassessment of fines and penalties contingent on the valuation outcome. The Commissioner was urged to expedite the re-adjudication process for the remaining goods pending clearance from customs.
|
