2017 (1) TMI 1275 - AT - Customs

Benami import - misdeclaration of value of goods being watches (with sweat band) - real owner was not on record - Held that - Allegation of Customs that the import was benami and made by M/s. Sindhya Exports & Imports on behalf of Arun Kumar could not be demolished by appellant leading any cogent evidence to the contrary. When Customs examined one Shri Jambulingam on 20.8.2004, identity of the real importer came to record. He was Arun Kumar. Neither the owner of the appellant-firm appeared against summons nor also co-operated during the investigation. Such modus operandi reveals that allegation of misdeclaration of the value could not be ruled out by appellant coming out with clean hands. In absence of any evidence led by appellant before the authorities below to support declared value to be transaction value, it is very difficult to disturb the assessable value determined by the Customs for the purpose of adjudication - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of value in import, Application of Customs Valuation Rules, Burden of proof on appellant

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue revolved around a case where a Bill of Entry was filed by a company, concealing the identity of the real importer and misdeclaring the value of imported goods. The investigation revealed that the declared value was inaccurate, leading to the Customs authorities determining a higher assessable value under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant argued that the declared transaction value was correct, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, resulting in the Customs authorities using Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rule, 1988 to ascertain the value.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant could not refute the Customs' allegation that the import was benami and made on behalf of the real importer. Despite the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence to support the declared value as the transaction value, the Tribunal upheld the Customs' determination of the assessable value, emphasizing the appellant's lack of cooperation and failure to establish clean hands in the matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing documentary evidence to support declared values and the burden of proof resting on the appellant in such cases.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that without concrete evidence from the appellant to challenge the Customs' valuation, there was no basis to intervene with the appellate order. The judgment underscored the significance of transparency and cooperation in customs matters, emphasizing the need for parties to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims and transactions to avoid misdeclaration issues and ensure fair customs adjudication.