2011 (3) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - The value of the goods is proposed to be increased by 1US from US 15 to US 16 and that too on the basis of a docks report - Even a copy of the docks report has not been produced nor has the JDR been able to show that such report is relevant to valuation of the subject-goods - Thus the proposal for enhancement of value is unacceptable and the plea for enhancement of the fine and penalty also cannot be accepted - The appeal of the Revenue gets dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against acceptance of declared value of subject-goods, reduction of quanta of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
In this appeal, the department challenges the acceptance of the declared value of 1000 units of old and used monitors, comprising 875 analog monitors and 125 digital monitors, in a bill of entry dated 9.8.2002. The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to the absence of an import license and imposed a fine of Rs. 3.5 lakhs for redemption, along with a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Act. The adjudicating authority increased the unit price to US$ 16 for analog monitors and US$ 19 for digital monitors based on a report of Docks Examiners. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no reliable basis for this enhancement and accepted the declared value. The appellate authority also reduced the fine to Rs. 1.25 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 25,000 after considering evidence of the margin of profit presented by the assessee.

Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal. The grounds for increasing the value of the goods lacked substantiation, as there was no production of the docks report supporting the proposed enhancement to US$ 16. The Tribunal deemed this proposal unacceptable, especially considering the absence of relevant evidence. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to maintain the declared value was considered reasonable. The Tribunal also rejected the plea for enhancing the fine and penalty, noting the lack of evidence from the appellant to demonstrate that the lower amounts set by the Commissioner (Appeals) were disproportionate to the declared value or that the margin of profit suggested by the assessee was incorrect.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the declared value, fine, and penalty.