2015 (11) TMI 756 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Mis-declaration of Value of imported goods Adjudicating authority confirmed customs duty demand along with interest thereon apart from imposing equivalent amount of penalty, as importer grossly mis-declared value of imports Held that - transaction values admitted in the confessional statement of the importer and the commission agent can straightway be adopted for determination of the value which escaped the assessment and for the demand of differential duty liability. The argument of the appellant that the values contained in the export declarations made before Antwerp Customs should have been taken as the basis for determination of transaction value is not tenable for the reason the actual transaction value is available in the documents retrieved which has also been admitted by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the adoption of values reflected in the computer printouts and the confessional statements as the basis for demand of differential duty in respect of the 13B/Es. Partner of the importing firm has admitted that the values shown in the export declaration are the correct values for the transaction. Therefore, no fault can be found if the assessable value is redetermined on the basis of the values declared in the export declarations and the duty liability determined accordingly. Thus the differential duty liability of ₹ 63,53,349.87 in respect of the 8 B/Es specified in Annexure B to the show cause notice is clearly sustainable in law Adjudicating authority has taken wrong exchange rate for calculating differential duty which needs correction. As regard quantity taken as 22.920 MT as against actual quantity of 16.130 MT in respect of bill of entry No. 97728 dated 28/11/2006 and also wrong exchange rate therein. On going through bill of entry, it is observed that the quantity shown in the bill of entry is 16.130 MT whereas against the said bill of entry the differential duty demand was calculated on 22.920 MT which was taken on the basis of export declaration. In this matter we are of the view that under any circumstances quantity cannot be increased as against the quantity mentioned in the bill of entry for the reason that the quantity shown in the bill of entry is the quantity which is imported and cleared form custom barrier unless until there a charge of smuggling of remaining quantity. We find that there is no material on record to show or establish that as against 16.130 MT the physical quantity was cleared or imported 22.920 MT, therefore the quantity of 22.920 taken for the determination of differential duty in bill of entry 977218 dated 28/11/2006 appears to be apparent mistake. - Rectification partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal order regarding differential duty liability, consideration of export declarations, adoption of wrong exchange rates, incorrect quantity in bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The application sought rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal order related to differential duty liability concerning export declarations, exchange rates, and quantity discrepancies in bill of entries. The applicant argued that certain consignments were not treated consistently, leading to an incorrect duty demand calculation.

2. The applicant contended that the Tribunal order erroneously adopted different approaches for consignments, resulting in a significant difference in the duty liability. The discrepancies in export declarations, values, and exchange rates were highlighted as grounds for rectification.

3. The applicant's counsel emphasized the incorrect adoption of exchange rates and quantities in specific bill of entries, pointing out the discrepancies between actual values and those used for duty calculation. The failure to address these discrepancies in the Tribunal order was cited as a basis for rectification.

4. The Revenue representative argued that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered all issues raised in the application and provided detailed findings in the original order. It was contended that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's decision, and thus, the application for rectification should be dismissed.

5. Upon careful consideration of both parties' submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the valuation discrepancies in detail. It was found that the Tribunal order had adequately addressed the issues raised by the applicant regarding the adoption of export declaration values and the calculation of duty liabilities based on available evidence.

6. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the original order concerning the valuation methodology applied to consignments. However, it acknowledged errors in the adoption of exchange rates and quantities in specific bill of entries, necessitating rectification for accurate duty determination.

7. The Tribunal partially allowed the application for rectification, directing the re-quantification of custom duty based on the corrected exchange rates and quantities. The appeal was remanded for the limited purpose of rectifying the identified mistakes in the original order.