2024 (9) TMI 945 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enahncement of value in respect of the goods warehoused in Kandla Special Economic Zone on the basis of NIDB data - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the NIDB data is of 2017 whereas the DTA clearance in this case was taken place in 2018 therefore, since the import under NIDB data and in the present case on a different time, the NIDB data cannot be applied straightaway. Moreover it is observed that there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the allegation of undervaluation such as any manipulation in the invoice issued by the appellant from their SEZ unit or there is any flow back of consideration from the buyer of the goods, therefore, in these facts the enhancement of value is baseless and on assumption. Therefore, the department could not establish the case of undervaluation against the appellant. As regard, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant, it is found that the value declared in the bill of entry as per the invoice since there is no other material adduced by the revenue, no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant that there was intentionally undervalued the goods. In such case, no fine and penalty can be imposed. The impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of goods in warehousing Bill of entry.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Sections 111(m) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application of NIDB data for value enhancement.
4. Compliance with Ministry of Commerce & Industry instructions.
5. Allegation of mis-declaration of value and imposition of fine and penalty.
6. Comparison with a previous judgment in a similar case.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a warehousing Bill of entry for clearance of whey proteins in SEZ, which were later seized for undervaluation. The appellant paid the duty under protest and appealed against the adjudication order.

2. The appellant argued that the value enhancement was not in compliance with Ministry instructions and no evidence supported undervaluation. The Tribunal found the department failed to establish undervaluation and set aside the confiscation and penalty.

3. The Revenue enhanced the value based on NIDB data from 2017, although the clearance occurred in 2018. The Tribunal held that NIDB data application was baseless due to the time difference, lack of evidence for undervaluation, and absence of malafide intent by the appellant.

4. The appellant contended that the assessment should follow Ministry instructions, but the Revenue relied on NIDB data. The Tribunal found the value declaration in the bill of entry as per the invoice valid, with no malafide intention by the appellant.

5. The appellant cited a previous judgment to support their case, emphasizing that no malafide intent was proven, and the value enhancement lacked a basis. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

6. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment involving mis-declaration of goods and penalty imposition, finding in favor of the appellant due to lack of violation of relevant provisions. The impugned order imposing penalty was set aside based on this judgment and the current case's findings.