2018 (3) TMI 568 - AT - Customs

Valuation - enhancement of value - whether the documentary evidence produced by the High Commission of India U.K. which was obtained from Italian Customs can be relied upon? - If it can be relied upon whether the value should be enhanced or otherwise? - imposition of redemption fine. Held that - As regard authenticity of these documents there cannot be any doubt for the reason that Italian Customs authority has obtained these documents directly from the supplier M/s Delbi Fibres and the same was obtained by the High Commission of India U.K. From perusal of these documents it cannot be said that these documents are not authentic - it is further established that the actual value shown in the invoice and documents submitted by M/s Delbi Fibres to the Italian Customs authorities is authentic and valid documents which cannot be questioned. All the documents submitted by the supplier are genuine and correct and considered as valid evidence. Therefore the same cannot be doubted - If it is so it is established that the appellant had under-valued the goods. Accordingly enhancement of the value and confirmation of differential duty demand and penalty related to such demand are correct and legal. Redemption fine - Held that - in the present case neither the goods were available nor the same were released on provisional basis therefore redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is not legal and proper - redemption fine set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Reassessment of bills of entries
- Enhanced value confirmation
- Differential duty demand
- Goods confiscation with redemption fine
- Imposition of penalty under section 114A
- Personal penalties imposition
- Reliability of documentary evidence
- Under-valuation of goods
- Authenticity of documents
- Legal validity of redemption fine
- Abatement of appeals due to death
- Imposition of penalties on Proprietor

Detailed Analysis:

Reassessment of Bills of Entries and Enhanced Value Confirmation:
The appeals were against orders-in-original passed by the Commissioner (Import) where the bills of entries were reassessed, value enhanced, differential duty demand confirmed, and goods confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant imported goods from an Italian supplier, and the value was reassessed based on investigations and inquiries conducted by Indian and Italian authorities. The appellant contested the under-valuation claim, stating that the declared value matched the supplier's invoices and no excess payment was made. The department relied on evidence obtained from Italian Customs authorities to support the under-valuation claim.

Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The appellant argued against confiscation, stating that the goods were not available for confiscation, citing a relevant legal precedent. The Tribunal found the redemption fine imposition improper as the goods were not available for confiscation or released provisionally, thus setting aside the redemption fine.

Authenticity of Documentary Evidence and Under-valuation:
The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence obtained from Italian Customs authorities through the High Commission of India, UK. The documents, including invoices and statements from the supplier, indicated under-valuation by the appellant. The Tribunal deemed the evidence authentic and upheld the enhanced value, duty demand confirmation, and penalties related to the under-valuation.

Abatement of Appeals and Penalty Imposition:
Appeals filed by a deceased individual were abated, and penalties imposed on the proprietor were reviewed. The Tribunal set aside an additional penalty imposed on the proprietor, stating that once a penalty is imposed on the proprietary concern, no separate penalty should be imposed on the proprietor.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the enhanced value, duty demand, and penalties related to under-valuation based on authentic documentary evidence. The redemption fine was set aside due to improper imposition, and penalties on the proprietor were reviewed. Appeals by the deceased individual were abated, and the decision was pronounced in court on 07.03.2018.