2023 (8) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Polyester Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics and Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics purchased on High Seas Sales basis - rejection of declared value - enhancement of assessable value - value enhanced on the basis of Bills of Entry relating to the import of M/s. Star Mint Fields P. Ltd., Surat considering them as a contemporaneous import - Confiscation - redemption fine - Penalty - HELD THAT - The type of fabric i.e, whether grey, semi dull or dull or bright and the quality of fabric and even width affect the price of the products. Even in case of the contemporary imports relied upon by the Department all other factors remaining the same, grey warp knitting fabric Bright value was declared at US 9.2/kg whereas Semi Dull was declared at US 8.55/kg. Similarly the values of Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics with semi dull and grey having an effect on the price. The contentions of the appellant that where more than one price are available as the contemporaneous prices, the lowest of the prices has to be adopted for the purpose of valuation. The basis for enhancement of the value of the impugned goods is the declared/assessed value of similar imports by M/s. Star Mint Fields Pvt. Ltd., Surat which are found to be provisionally assessed. On this count also the enhancement of the declared value is not sustainable and is not in accordance with the provision of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The proper officer can, on certain reasons , raise doubts about the truth or accuracy of declared value and these certain reasons can be higher value of identical / similar goods of comparable quantities in a comparable transaction, abnormal discounts or abnormal deduction from competitive prices, mis-declaration on parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production, non-declaration of parameters such as brand and grade and fraudulent or manipulated documents. In these appeals, the only reason for rejecting the transaction value is on account of noticing higher values of the contemporaneous imports. However, while determining a particular import to be considered as a contemporaneous import for enhancement, it is necessary to match all commercial level details like quality, quantity, type whether under a contract, physical characteristics, brand, reputation, country of origin, time of import, stock lot sale, manufacturers sale, etc. Thus, there was no allegation that the importer has mis-declared the description of goods or whether any excess quantity found or whether there is any mis-declaration of brand or country of origin or type or as to any other aspect in relation to imported goods. The appellant has clearly explained the sequence of events in respect of impugned goods as to what rate the manufacturer has sold the goods to M/s. J.S. Fashions (L.L.C), Dubai and at what rate M/s. J.S. Fashions has sold to M/s. Sainath Knitex Pvt. Ltd., Surat and considering the rate at which he has purchased the goods on high seas sales from M/s. Sainath Knitex Pvt. Ltd., Surat and considering the fact that Department's reliance was mainly on the basis of the values declared by M/s. Star Mint Fields Pvt. Ltd., Surat, it is held that enhancement resorted to is not legally justified and so un-sustainable. Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT - The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are dis-proportionately high when compared to the declared value of the impugned goods at Rs.27,93,043/- which was enhanced to Rs.48,59,847/-. The confiscation of the imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant are not legally justified and so set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Enhancement of Assessable Value
2. Justification of Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty

Summary:

1. Legality of Enhancement of Assessable Value:

The appellant imported Nylon Knitted Grey Fabrics and Polyester Nylon Knitted Grey Fabrics, declaring values of US$ 5.15/kg and US$ 3.9/kg, respectively. The Revenue suspected undervaluation based on contemporaneous imports by M/s. Sai Enterprises, where similar goods were valued at US$ 9.2/kg and US$ 8.55/kg. The enhancement was also based on imports by M/s. Sainath Knitex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Star Mint Fields Pvt. Ltd., Surat.

The appellant argued that the enhancement was contrary to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and relevant case law, including M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd. [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. The appellant contended that the comparison was based on general descriptions rather than specific varieties, which fetch different prices. Additionally, the contemporaneous imports used for comparison were provisionally assessed and pending test reports, making them unreliable for valuation purposes.

The Tribunal found that the enhancement of the declared value was not legally sustainable. The comparison lacked detailed commercial information, such as quality, quantity, and type, necessary for determining contemporaneous prices. The Tribunal also noted that the imported goods were still pending clearance and had deteriorated in quality due to prolonged storage.

2. Justification of Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty:

The Show Cause Notice proposed the enhancement of the assessable value, confiscation of the imported goods, and imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority re-determined the assessable value and ordered confiscation, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and penalties totaling Rs. 18,04,806/- on the appellant and M/s. MKS Shipping Agencies P Ltd.

The appellant contended that the penalties were disproportionately high compared to the alleged undervaluation. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of evidence for mis-declaration of goods or any other fraudulent activity. The Tribunal found that the enhancement was based on provisionally assessed values, which is not permissible under the valuation rules.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding the enhancement of the assessable value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties to be unjustified. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.