9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. M.Cus.106/96 concerning import of Lady's Electrical Shaver from Taiwan. - Misdeclaration of value and import without a valid import license. - Reduction of assessable value and penalty, but not interfering with the redemption fine. - Validity of enhancing the assessable value based on quotations. - Comparison with earlier imports at different prices. - Consideration of redemption fine and penalty for unauthorised import. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal regarding the import of 5000 pieces of Lady's Electrical Shaver from Taiwan, declaring a value of US$ 0.60 per piece. The order upheld the confiscation for misdeclaration and import without a valid license, but reduced the assessable value to US$ 2.07 per set and the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 40,000, without altering the redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000. 2. The advocate for the appellant argued against enhancing the assessable value based on a quotation obtained by the department, citing previous cases where declared transaction value was accepted without evidence of fraud. The advocate did not press the issue of a valid import license, leaving it to the discretion of the Bench. 3. The appellant's advocate pointed out a similar import in Calcutta at lower prices, questioning the validity of enhancing the assessable value. The Department argued that the quotation was from the same manufacturer as the foreign supplier, and there was no evidence of sub-standard goods or stock-lot items. 4. The Tribunal found that the department's reliance on quotations alone was insufficient to discard the declared transaction value, especially without evidence of contemporaneous imports at those prices. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessable value should not be enhanced based solely on quotations. 5. As the advocate did not press the issue of an unauthorized import due to the absence of a valid license, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the order regarding confiscation and penalty. However, the redemption fine and penalty needed to be re-evaluated separately for unauthorised import and misdeclaration of value, as the latter was set aside. 6. Considering the pending clearance of the consignment for over 3 years and the heavy demurrage, the Tribunal instructed the original authority to recompute the redemption fine and penalty, taking into account the circumstances and to expedite the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for remand based on the above terms.
|
