2017 (11) TMI 1118 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - appellant had mis-declared the quantity of the blank video cassettes of Panasonic brand, had not declared a large quantity of blank video cassettes of Sony brand and also 30 pieces of high definition video cameras of Panasonic brand - valuation of imported goods - Held that - when the goods were examined by the Customs Authorities, it was found that the imported goods did not match with the declaration made by the appellant in the bill of entry - Mis-declaration was found in terms of the actual quantum of the video cassettes as well as in the description of the imported video cassettes. In addition to the declared goods, 30 pieces of Panasonic brand video cameras were also found. Since, there is no dispute on the fact of mis-declaration, we have no hesitation in upholding the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111 of the Customs Act 1962. Valuation of imported goods - evidence of contemporaneous import - Held that - the Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT has held that once the nature of goods is mis-declared, the value declared becomes unacceptable - in view of the mis-declaration by the importer, the declared values become un-acceptable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we also do not find any serious irregularity in the method adopted by the lower authorities. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of imported goods, Valuation of imported goods

Analysis:
The appellant imported goods and filed a bill of entry, but upon examination, discrepancies were found in the quantity and description of the goods declared. The appellant had mis-declared the quantity of video cassettes and failed to declare Panasonic brand video cameras. As there was no dispute regarding the mis-declaration, the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111 of the Customs Act 1962 was upheld.

Regarding the valuation of the imported goods, the Department determined the value under rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 through a market enquiry process. The appellant contested this valuation process, arguing that the Department did not follow a sequential application of rules 4 to 8 before resorting to rule 9. However, the proprietor's initial acceptance of the valuation basis was considered valid, and his subsequent retraction after a significant period was deemed an afterthought. The absence of contemporaneous import evidence further justified the valuation based on market enquiry under rule 9.

The appellant relied on various case laws to support the argument that the transaction value should be accepted. The Tribunal referred to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the significance of the ordinary value of goods in international trade. In alignment with the court's stance, the Tribunal concluded that due to the mis-declaration by the importer, the declared values were unacceptable. Considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found no irregularity in the valuation method adopted by the lower authorities, ultimately upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appeal.