Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1447 - CESTAT NEW DELHIUnder Valuation of imported goods - Mis-declaration of imported goods - import of of Cubic Zirconia (cut and polished) - the appellant is engaged in importation of Cubic Zirconia (cut and polished) by mis-declaring the quality by declaring the superior quality as inferior quality before the assessment by the Customs at Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur - retraction of statements - Held that:- It is on record that the proprietor of the appellant has accepted the mis-declaration in their various statements and also paid a substantial portion of demand prior to adjudication by the lower adjudicating authority. Although the various case law has been submitted by the ld. Advocate on the issue of undervaluation and reopening of the assessed Bill of Entry on which duty has been finally paid and goods have been cleared from the Customs area - the record has been obtained from the computer of the appellant company and the same was never disputed by their proprietor. The various statements which were tendered under Section 108 of Customs Act were never ever retracted. In the case at hand duty has been demanded under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 as indicates that Department is adopting two different methodologies of valuation in the same proceedings emanating from same search and demand for the previous period - in relation to same proceedings, two different methods have been adopted and if in the decision cited supra in relation to seized goods, residual method has been adopted and upheld, then the same cannot have any precedent value for the proceedings in this case as Valuation Method on the basis of which Department proceeds in the instant impugned Show Cause Notice is different being based on Rule 4 of identical goods. Since branding, grading on the basis of quality and packing are processes which are carried out in India, even as per the Show Cause Notice, therefore, the goods as were cleared by the Customs after proper assessment in normal packing cannot be termed to be the same as were being sold by them or imported by them in vacuum packing, after branding and grading. We accordingly held that in the absence of corroboration and cogent evidence, the Department’s case is based upon assumption and presumption, that the goods in normal packing were having the same value as the branded and vacuumed packed goods, which in any case cannot be a pragmatic value in commercial world. It is not uncommon to do labour and processing on various imported goods in India as the same compare to India is normally expensive in overseas market. We setting aside of the sustained portion of the demand also. On the same basis, as Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held for portion of demand pertaining to earlier period in the impugned Show Cause Notice. - decided in favor of appellant.
|