2006 (7) TMI 446 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Misdeclaration of goods description and valuation; Dispute over valuation of goods; Acceptance of valuation by the appellant; Confiscation and penalty imposed.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of two parcels - one with rough ruby and the other with cut precious and synthetic stones. Discrepancies were found in the declared value of the second parcel, specifically regarding yellow zircon stones misdeclared as natural yellow sapphire. The goods were tested and valued by a Government Approved Valuer and a three-member panel from the Gem and Jewellery Promotion Council. The appellant disputed the valuation but eventually agreed to it, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of a redemption fine and penalty.

The appellant argued that the misdeclaration was due to the supplier's mistake in describing the goods. They contested the valuation based on the reports of the Government Approved Valuer and the panel members, claiming they were not provided with these reports. They relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their stance that the transaction value should be accepted when the invoice's genuineness is not in question.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appellant had acknowledged the misdeclaration and accepted the valuation in a letter to the Deputy Commissioner. They emphasized that the appellant had been informed of the valuation reports and disputed the freight element included in the valuation.

The Tribunal noted the misdeclaration of the goods and rejected the appellant's argument that they were not provided with the valuation reports. It was established that the appellant was aware of the valuation arrived at by the Government Approved Valuer and the Trade Panel. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the valuation determined. However, considering the circumstances and the low duty rate, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.