2017 (12) TMI 31 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - rusted M.S. Pipes - requirement of valid import licence - Held that - In as much as the nature of the imported goods viz., used rusted pipes, there is no dispute. This being so, the allegations of goods requiring specific import licence, but not produced, is sustainable. Valuation - enhancement of value - case of appellant is that the import was a bulk purchase under quantity import hence enjoyed discount - Held that - the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim that the declared price was correct transaction value, before any of the lower authorities - both exporter and consignee are identical, aspect which would definitely raised doubt about correctness of the declared imported value - rejection of declared value upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of restricted goods without proper license, undervaluation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported rusted M.S. Pipes without a valid import license, which is a restricted item under the Foreign Trade Policy. The department alleged that the declared value of the goods was significantly lower than the actual value of similar imported goods. The original authority enhanced the value of the imported goods and confiscated them under the Customs Act, 1962, offering an option to redeem the goods by paying a fine and imposing a penalty.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the import was a bulk purchase with a discount, and the invoice value should be accepted unless there is evidence of mutual interest between the seller and buyer. He contended that the lower authorities did not follow proper valuation rules for determining the assessable value of the goods.

3. The department, represented by the Ld. DR, supported the impugned order, stating that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting the declared value. It was noted that the exporters and consignees were the same entity, raising doubts about the accuracy of the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already reduced the redemption fine and penalty.

4. The Tribunal considered both arguments and reviewed the records. It was established that the imported goods were used rusted pipes, and the requirement of a specific import license was valid due to the nature of the goods. The main dispute centered around the enhancement of the value of the goods. The Tribunal agreed with the department that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support the declared value, especially considering the identical exporter and consignee. The lower authorities correctly applied the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 to reject the declared value and enhance it accordingly.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the decision of the lower authorities. The order was dictated and pronounced in the open court, concluding the case.