9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of goods 2. Benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus. Summary: Issue 1: Undervaluation of Goods 1.1 Order-in-Original No. 51/95 (Commr.), dated 28-7-1995: The Commissioner confiscated 204 MTs of polystyrene u/s 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration of value and shortfall in value-based advance licenses. The declared value was Rs. 38,71,374.30, while the Commissioner fixed it at Rs. 72,08,544.00. A redemption fine of Rs. 35 lakhs was imposed, and the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was denied. A personal penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs was imposed on the proprietor. 1.2 Order-in-Original No. 3/96 (Commr.), dated 25-9-1995: The Commissioner confiscated 305 MTs of polypropylene u/s 111(d) and 111(m) with a redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. The value was fixed at U.S.$ 1015 per M.T. CIF for certain grades and U.S.$ 960 per M.T. for others. The benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus. was denied, and a personal penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs was imposed on the proprietor. 1.3 Findings on Undervaluation: The Tribunal found no allegations in the show cause notice that invoices were fabricated. The discrepancies in Bills of Lading (Bs/L) were explained as endorsements in international trade practices. The relationship between the importer and the supplier did not influence the price. The contract dated 11-4-1994 was genuine, and the declared value was accepted. The Commissioner's reliance on a single instance of import by Bombay Customs House was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the declared value of the goods was not proved to be wrong by the Revenue. Issue 2: Benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus. 2.1 Order-in-Original No. 51/95 (Commr.), dated 28-7-1995: The Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus., stating that the original license holders did not declare non-availment of Modvat benefits. The appellant did not discharge the burden of proof for the exemption. 2.2 Order-in-Original No. 3/96 (Commr.), dated 25-9-1995: The Commissioner found that the imported goods were not required for the export product, and the benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus. was denied. 2.3 Findings on Notification 203/92-Cus.: The Tribunal held that the Customs authorities cannot question the endorsement of transferability by the Licensing Authority (L.A.). The nexus between imported materials and export products is not required to be proved afresh by a transferee licensee. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that Customs cannot require the importer to prove eligibility once the license is endorsed as transferable. The benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus. was allowed to the appellant. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all three appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
