2015 (11) TMI 31 - AT - Customs

Valuation Confiscation and Demand of differential duty on account of valuation - Imported two CT scanner machines Redemption fine and penalty imposed Appellant contended that there was no mis-declaration - Chartered Engineer certificate obtained at back of appellant and principles of natural justice violated - Declared value should be accepted and there was no ground available to reject the same and onus was on Revenue to prove under-valuation - Not a case for confiscation or imposition of penalty as there was no mala fide or mis-declaration. Held That - By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby foregoing need for SCN, appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish valuation any further as consented value in effect becomes declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification and as such violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged - Onus will be on appellant to establish that valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged Valuation as such is upheld. It is simply a case of valuation dispute devoid of any mens rea on part of appellant - Appellant never consented for confiscation and penalty and did not forego its right for SCN or personal hearing - Confiscation and penalty ordered in violation of principles of natural justice Penalty set aside Decided partially in favour of appellant.

Issues:
1. Valuation dispute regarding imported CT scanner machines.
2. Consent given by the appellant to the enhanced value proposed by Revenue.
3. Allegations of mis-declaration, violation of natural justice, and onus of proof on Revenue.
4. Legal principles related to consented valuation and challenge post-consent.
5. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.

Issue 1: Valuation Dispute
The appellant imported two CT scanner machines with declared values of US$ 29,000 and US$ 31,000, respectively. Revenue, relying on a website, valued the machines at US$ 72,000 and US$ 78,750. The appellant contested the valuation, citing a Chartered Engineer certificate and challenging Revenue's assessment under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Issue 2: Consent to Enhanced Value
The appellant, to avoid detention and demurrage charges, consented to Revenue's proposed value without wanting a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Consequently, the Commissioner assessed the value at a higher amount, confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and penalty, all of which were contested by the appellant.

Issue 3: Allegations and Onus of Proof
The appellant argued against mis-declaration, violation of natural justice, and shifting the burden of proof to Revenue. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the declared value should be accepted, challenging Revenue's reliance on a website for valuation and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

Issue 4: Legal Principles on Consent and Challenge
The Tribunal emphasized that once consented to, the enhanced value becomes the declared transaction value, relieving Revenue of further investigation. Quoting past judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that challenging a consented value post-payment without protest is legally untenable, as seen in similar cases where importers were estopped from challenging loaded values after payment.

Issue 5: Confiscation and Penalty
While upholding the valuation, the Tribunal found no evidence of mis-declaration by the appellant, highlighting the absence of mens rea. Consequently, the demand for differential duty was deemed appropriate, but confiscation and penalty were considered unjust due to the lack of consent and violation of natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty while upholding the valuation dispute. The judgment underscores the significance of consented values, burden of proof, and principles of natural justice in customs valuation disputes.

← Previous Next →