9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining assessable value of seized watches, imposition of penalty on authorized signatory, legal import proof burden, confiscation of watches, market value vs. CIF value for duty levy. Assessable Value of Watches: The case involved the seizure of watches and watch movements by Customs Authorities due to lack of evidence for their legal import. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter twice to redetermine the assessable value. The appellant argued that the authorities erred by not following the Tribunal's directions, citing the importance of CIF value over market value for duty calculation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, determining the CIF value at Rs. 135 per unit based on market reports, significantly lower than the earlier assessed value. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 85,000. Imposition of Penalty: Regarding the imposition of penalties, the authorized signatory of the company contested that no evidence of smuggling was presented against him. The Judicial Member noted that the appellant failed to provide proof of legal import, justifying the penalty. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty on the company was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and on the authorized signatory to Rs. 25,000. Legal Import Burden and Confiscation: The Respondent argued that since the watches were of foreign origin, the burden was on the appellants to prove legal import, which they failed to do. Consequently, the confiscation of the watches was deemed lawful and justified by the Tribunal. Market Value vs. CIF Value: The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between market value and CIF value for duty calculation, stating that CIF value cannot be equal to market value. By determining the CIF value at Rs. 135 per unit, the Tribunal significantly reduced the redemption fine. The Tribunal upheld the order with modifications, reducing the redemption fine and penalties while confirming the confiscation of watches based on the burden of proof regarding legal import.
|
