9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 67 - AT - CustomsRejection of Transaction Value - imported goods did not correspond in thickness with the description made in the Bill of Entry - appellant had filed the Bill of Entry and produced invoices with goods of 0.3 mm thickness and on examination they were found to be of much higher thickness - HELD THAT - The transaction value can be rejected under Rule 12. If the proper officer has some reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value he can call for information and on receiving such information or if the information is not provided, the proper officer still has a reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, it shall be deemed that the valuation cannot be done as per the transaction value. Discrepancy between the goods declared and goods actually imported gave the officer reason to doubt the transaction value and the owner of the appellant firm was summoned who, in his statement, admitted the mistake. It is not the case that the appellant had provided any invoice for the goods which were actually imported, .i.e., those whose thickness was 0.38 mm to 0.45 mm. We, therefore, find that the officer had reasonable doubt regarding the truth and accuracy of the transaction value and has correctly rejected it. Having rejected the transaction value under Rule 12, he found that there were no imports of identical goods and hence the value could not be determined under Rule 4 and therefore, proceeded to determine it under Rule 5. These proposals were incorporated in the SCN and the appellant was given adequate opportunity to submit its defence. We, therefore, find no force in the submission of appellant that the adjudicating authority should have determined the value under Rule 4. When it is specifically recorded that there were no imports of identical goods and the appellant also did not produce any evidence to the contrary till now, Rule 4 could not have been and has correctly not been applied. Consequently, the value was determined under Rule 5. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in upholding the OIO insofar as the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12 and its re- determination under Rule 5 are concerned. Confiscation of the goods u/s 111(m) of the Act and imposition of redemption fine u/s 125 of the Act in lieu of confiscation - The appellant had clearly made a declaration in the Bill of Entry which is false. Appellant s contention is that it had no intention and it had actually ordered for goods of 0.3 mm thickness but its supplier had supplied goods of much higher thickness (and therefore of higher quality) but sent an invoice for goods of only 0.3 mm. This submission cannot be accepted. If anyone orders some goods and the seller delivers wrong goods, one will naturally return them. Instead, in this case, the appellant accepted the mistake and sought provisional release of the goods which were actually imported. This shows that wrong goods were not sent by the supplier and it is the appellant who made the wrong statement in the Bill of Entry and produced an invoice for the wrong goods to evade duty. The intention of any person can only be inferred from the facts of the case and the behaviour of the person. We have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry. Penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- each was correctly imposed on the appellant u/s 114AA and 112 of the Act. We find no error in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the OIO. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Transaction Value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 2. Re-determination of Value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 3. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Imposition of Redemption Fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Transaction Value under Rule 12: - The appellant declared the goods as having a thickness of 0.3 mm, but upon examination, they were found to be of a higher thickness (0.38 mm to 0.45 mm). The discrepancy between the declared and actual thickness provided the officer with a reason to doubt the transaction value's truth and accuracy, justifying its rejection under Rule 12. The appellant admitted the mistake, and no invoice was provided for the goods actually imported. Thus, the rejection of the transaction value was deemed correct. 2. Re-determination of Value under Rule 5: - After rejecting the transaction value under Rule 12, the officer found no imports of identical goods, making Rule 4 inapplicable. Consequently, the value was determined under Rule 5 based on contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The appellant was given an opportunity to defend against this determination, and the adjudicating authority's decision to use Rule 5 was upheld as there was no evidence to apply Rule 4. 3. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(m): - The goods did not match the description in the Bill of Entry, specifically in terms of thickness, and were thus liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the goods was upheld as correct, given the discrepancy in the declared and actual nature of the goods. 4. Imposition of Redemption Fine under Section 125: - Although the goods were confiscated, they were allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,50,000/-. This fine was considered fair, given the value of the goods was Rs. 98,83,894/-. The adjudicating authority's imposition of the redemption fine was deemed appropriate. 5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112: - The appellant's mis-declaration of the goods' nature in the Bill of Entry rendered them liable to confiscation. Therefore, a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed under Section 112, which was considered fair and proper. The penalty was a consequence of the appellant's actions that led to the confiscation under Section 111(m). 6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA: - Section 114AA allows for penalties if a person knowingly or intentionally makes false declarations. The appellant's claim that it ordered goods of 0.3 mm thickness but received goods of higher thickness was not accepted. The appellant did not seek to return the goods but instead sought their provisional release, indicating intentional mis-declaration. The penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was correctly imposed under Section 114AA, as the appellant's actions demonstrated intent to evade duty. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal found no errors in the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original. The rejection of the transaction value, re-determination of value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of fines and penalties were all upheld as appropriate and justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
