9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include undervaluation of imported goods, determination of country of origin, reliance on internet prices, confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, imposition of fine and penalty, and the reliability of evidence presented by both the Revenue authorities and the appellant. Undervaluation and Country of Origin: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of Vivitar Lenses, initially showing the supplier as M/s. Vivitar (Asia) Ltd., Hong Kong. However, upon inspection, it was revealed that the goods were of Japanese origin, with markings on the lenses indicating the same. The Customs authorities alleged undervaluation and doubtful country of origin, leading to a show cause notice being issued to the appellants. Reliance on Internet Prices: The Commissioner of Customs relied on internet prices for Vivitar lenses to determine the value of the imported goods. The appellant's advocate argued against the reliability of these prices, pointing out that the document was unsigned and raised doubts about its authenticity. The advocate also highlighted discrepancies in the internet document and emphasized that the Commissioner had ignored correspondence from the appellants and Vivitar (Asia) Ltd., which contradicted the internet prices. Confiscation and Penalty: Based on the alleged undervaluation, the Commissioner of Customs held the goods as liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for redemption of the goods and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellants. This led to the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the confiscation and penalties imposed. Evaluation of Evidence: The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and agreed with the appellant's advocate that the department's reliance on internet prices was misplaced. The Tribunal found the internet document to be unreliable due to lack of authentication and clarity on the nature of prices indicated. In contrast, the manufacturer's price list provided by the appellants was considered credible and not challenged by the Revenue authorities, leading to the impugned order being set aside and the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had misdirected itself by disregarding the value declared by the appellants and relying on unreliable internet prices. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellants based on the credibility of the evidence presented.
|
