2017 (4) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Whether the goods imported and declared as components/parts are to be considered as a complete unit in disassembled form and accordingly to be assessed as per the value for the complete unit and whether the value declared by the appellant needs to be enhanced based upon the prices of the original manufacturer? Held that - The appellant cleared the goods provisionally at the enhanced value. Subsequent adjudication proceedings had confirmed enhancement of the value and imposed a penalty of ₹ 4.25 lakhs which was reduced by the first appellate authority to ₹ 3 lakhs - We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority as Revenue is able to produce evidence to dislodge the price declared by the appellant-importer. The appellant-importer is not able to justify or lead any contrary evidence that the prices of goods which are imported by the original manufacturer, are incorrect and in the absence of any such controversion, the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of imported goods as complete unit or parts/components.
2. Misdeclaration of value by the appellant.
3. Confirmation of enhanced value and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was whether the goods imported and declared as components/parts should be considered as a complete unit in disassembled form for assessment purposes. The appellant had imported various items like Samsung plastic cabinet, metal parts, unbranded plastic knobs, remote control unit, manuals, and packing case. The lower authorities concluded that these parts should be assessed as a complete unit, i.e., a VCD, and issued a show cause notice for misdeclaration of value. However, both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority determined that the imported parts cannot be considered a complete unit and should be assessed as individual parts and components. The Revenue did not appeal against this decision by the lower authorities.

2. Regarding the misdeclaration of value, it was found that the appellant had declared a price of US $16.30 as FOB, which was deemed lower than the price indicated by the original manufacturer, Samsung, at US $19.74 for the same parts and accessories. The appellant later cleared the goods provisionally at the enhanced value. Subsequent adjudication proceedings confirmed the enhancement of value and imposed a penalty, which was reduced by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was able to provide evidence to challenge the declared price by the appellant, and the appellant failed to present any evidence to dispute the manufacturer's prices. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, stating that the impugned order was correct and legal, requiring no interference.

3. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration, upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. The decision was pronounced in court on 13-10-2016. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurately declaring the value of imported goods and the consequences of misdeclaration, emphasizing the need for proper justification and evidence in such cases.