Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2011 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 619 - AT - CustomsTransaction value of the imported goods - Aluminium Scrap - purpose of assessment - show cause notice - Appeal against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) - M/s. Baheti Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. were engaged in importation of aluminium scrap. The allegation of the Revenue was that they were manipulating the actual value of the imported consignment in collusion with the supplier firms, High sea sellers and indenters in India and were declaring lower value for purpose of assessment thereby paying lesser amount of customs duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding the differential customs duty, along with interest and proposing penalties under Sections 114A and 112A of the Customs Act, 1962.On adjudication the original adjudicating authority rejected the values declared by M/s. Baheti Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. and held that the value should be re-determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.He also held that the goods valued as above will be liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine of on the goods covered by Bill of Entry. Being aggrieved with the order they filed an appeal before this Bench. HELD THAT:- It is also seen that the high seas seller from whom the appellants purchased the scrap also imported the same for their individual use as well for trading. It is significant that during the period of dispute the high seas sellers had either imported scrap for their own use or sold the same to other individuals or companies at the same price as was for the appellants. In all these cases the goods were allowed to be cleared and no objection was raised by the Revenue. The contentions of M/s. Baheti Metals, therefore, are acceptable as we do not find why these assessments were resorted and the goods were allowed to be cleared. the value declared in the Bill of Entry has been correctly stated and the transaction value of the goods in question in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules is correctly declared particularly when other Bills of Entry are assessed at the lower price. We find that there is no mis-declaration of the value and the allegation is unsustainable to that extent. The provisions of Section 11M of the Act therefore cannot be invoked and no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed in this case. No demand of duty as proposed in the show cause notice and confirmed by the learned Commissioner is sustainable and no penalty therefore can be imposed on the assessees or on any persons thereby. The confiscation of goods ordered also is not sustained. In short the order of Commissioner lacks support of sufficient evidence to sustain the order. The Order-in-Original of Commissioner, therefore, is set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief if any.
|