9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 761 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - branded goods or not - goods needed to be treated as branded because of embossing of SORL on the parts or not - reliance placed on value of contemporaneous imports available in NIDB data - penalty on appellant as well as on his partner - HELD THAT - The Appellant sell the goods in wholesale in bulk, without any printed package. The goods sold by them do not have any replacement warranty. The part number and the embossing of SORL mentioned for identification purpose cannot be considered as sale of branded goods. There were contemporaneous imports with lesser value than the value declared by the Appellant, which was not taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority while re-determing the value. As the details of the Bills of Entry are not available, the value relied upon by the revenue on contemporaneous imports cannot be considered as value of similar goods. The value available on NIDB data cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value. This view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of AGARWAL FOUNDRIES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2019 (6) TMI 1544 - CESTAT HYDERABAD . The rejection of the value declared by the Appellant based on NIDB data on similar goods is not sustainable. Accordingly, in respect of the import made by the Appellant under Bill of Entry No 8177874 dated 10.10.2012, there is no evidence available on record to reject the transaction value declared by them and hence the differential duty arrived at by the adjudicating authority based on the value available on contemporaneous import of similar goods is not sustainable. Since the demand is not sustainable, the penalty imposed on the Appellant on this count is not sustainable. Penalty of Rs.7,00,000/- on the Partner Shri. Puneet Samalia under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The impugned order has not brought in any evidence against the partner in the alleged offence. As the allegation of suppression of value is not established, the penalty imposed on the partner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the Partner Shri. Puneet Samalia is set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Transaction Value 2. Use of NIDB Data for Valuation 3. Branding of Imported Goods 4. Extended Period of Limitation 5. Penalty on Partner Summary: Rejection of Transaction Value: The Appellant's declared transaction values for goods imported through nine Bills of Entry and Bill of Entry No. 8177874 were rejected based on a sheet retrieved from their computer, which the DRI alleged contained the actual transaction value. The Tribunal found this adoption erroneous as the sheet was not a price list. Use of NIDB Data for Valuation: The Commissioner re-determined the assessable value using NIDB data. The Tribunal held that transaction value cannot be rejected solely based on NIDB data, as it does not show imports of comparable goods. The adjudicating authority failed to consider instances of lower value imports cited by the Appellant, relying only on DRI's dossier. The Tribunal found no evidence to reject the declared transaction value and set aside the differential duty demand and penalties. Branding of Imported Goods: The Tribunal observed no evidence that goods imported through the nine Bills of Entry were branded. The mere embossing of 'SORL' and part numbers for identification does not make the goods branded. The adjudicating authority did not provide contrary findings, thus the claim of branding was dismissed. Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts. All nine Bills of Entry were cleared upon assessment and payment of duty by the proper officer, and no information was suppressed by the Appellant. Penalty on Partner: The Tribunal found no evidence against the partner, Shri Puneet Samalia, in the alleged offense. As the suppression of value was not established, the penalty imposed on him was set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, rejecting the re-determined values, differential duty demands, and penalties, and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants.
|
