2018 (5) TMI 1429 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used second hand Krupp Hydraulic Truck Mobile Crane - enhancement of value based on the printout taken from website contending for the similar machine - Held that - except the discrepancy pointed out by the Customs Authority all other information is tallying with invoice such as make model country year of manufacturing etc. Therefore the certificate cannot be brushed aside straight away. However from such discrepancy it cannot be established that the value declared by the appellant is incorrect even if the certificate is not considered to be authentic. The Revenue has relied upon the website printout however on comparison the details given in the website printout and the invoice of the supplier in the case of appellant s import there are many differences. It cannot be said that the machinery shown in the crane network website and the machine imported by the appellant are same. Therefore there is absolutely no basis available with the Customs on which the value could have enhanced - the impugned order enhancing the value demanding the differential duty and confiscating the goods has no basis and is set aside - Since the demand itself does not exist there is no question of penalty under Section 114A. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, Discrepancy in Chartered Engineer certificate, Confiscation of goods, Penalty under Customs Act.

Valuation of imported goods:
The case involved the import of an old and used second-hand Krupp Hydraulic Truck Mobile Crane. The Customs Authority doubted the valuation due to a discrepancy in the Chartered Engineer certificate. The Department compared the declared value in the Bills of Entry with a printout from a website, showing a higher value for a similar crane. Consequently, the value was enhanced in the adjudication order, leading to the demand for differential duty and confiscation of the goods. The appellant contested this valuation enhancement, arguing that variations between the imported machine and the crane in the website printout rendered the valuation invalid.

Discrepancy in Chartered Engineer certificate:
The Customs Authority raised concerns about the Chartered Engineer certificate provided by the appellant, noting discrepancies such as it being a photocopy without the original letterhead and missing dates. Despite these discrepancies, the certificate matched other information like make, model, country, and year of manufacturing in the invoice. The Tribunal acknowledged the discrepancies but emphasized that they did not definitively prove the appellant's declared value was incorrect. The Revenue relied on the website printout, but a comparison revealed significant differences between the imported crane and the one on the website, undermining the basis for value enhancement.

Confiscation of goods and Penalty under Customs Act:
The impugned order had enhanced the value, demanded differential duty, and imposed a redemption fine and penalties. However, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies between the imported machine and the one on the website printout invalidated the value enhancement. As a result, the order enhancing value, demanding duty, and confiscating the goods was set aside. The appeals of the appellant and another individual were allowed, and since the demand did not hold, penalties under the Customs Act were not applicable. The Revenue's appeal for additional penalties was dismissed as it did not survive due to the lack of a valid demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of accurate valuation in customs matters and the need for substantial evidence to support valuation enhancements. The judgment emphasized the significance of detailed scrutiny in customs cases to ensure fairness and accuracy in determining duties and penalties.