2017 (2) TMI 1158 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported items - disposable cap and Halogen Lamps - Held that - The material data of comparable goods as per the information NIDB data base is available with the authorities for assessment. The same has not been contested also by the appellant. The value declared by the appellant is lesser than NIDB data by only a small margin. Re-determination of value as per NIDB data is not contested by the appellant. We find there is no legal justification to conduct a market enquiry especially in the presence of comparable data authenticated in NIDB for identical goods for material period. Even otherwise the details of market enquiry should have been made available to the appellant for his response so that a due decision can be arrived at. The same has not been done - The value of imported goods shall be determined in terms of data recorded in the impugned order based on NIDB. Import of undeclared items - prohibited items - measuring tapes having dual markings - Held that - The appellant cannot totally escape the responsibility for such import of undeclared item. However, considering the type of items imported and there being ordered to be absolutely confiscated, the penalty may be reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, confiscation of undeclared items, penalty imposition

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs regarding the valuation of imported goods, specifically measuring tapes with dual markings and Halogen Lamps. The Commissioner held that the dual-marked measuring tapes violated the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, leading to absolute confiscation. The valuation of disposable caps was based on comparable data in NIDB, while for Halogen lamps, a market enquiry was conducted to determine the value following RSP and Notification 13/2008-CE (NT). The impugned order confirmed a differential Customs Duty and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued for acceptance of NIDB value, contesting the need for a market enquiry and penalty imposition.

Confiscation of Undeclared Items:
Undeclared measuring tapes with dual markings were found in the consignment, leading to their absolute confiscation. The appellant waived the requirement of a show cause notice and personal hearing, requesting the Commissioner to decide the issue due to the consignments incurring damage. The appellant contested the confiscation and penalty imposition, stating they were not notified about the market enquiry and the results thereof. The Tribunal noted that the appellant cannot escape responsibility for the import of undeclared items found along with the ordered items, reducing the penalty imposed.

Penalty Imposition:
The penalty of ?20,00,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which the appellant argued was not justifiable. The appellant claimed the penalty was unwarranted as they had placed orders based on a proforma invoice, attributing any mistake to the exporter. The Tribunal found that while the appellant could not avoid liability for the undeclared items, the penalty was reduced to ?2,00,000 considering the nature of the items and the absolute confiscation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, directing the valuation of imported goods based on NIDB data, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant, and allowing the appeal in part.