2011 (5) TMI 606 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted items - Confiscation - Enhancement of declared value in respect of the marble imported from Turkey - Held that - Unable to accept the argument that the marble from Turkey is being imported at a lower price which is declared by the importer as no bill of entry has been produced in support of their claim. There is no evidence on record that the Turkish marble prices were declined during this period thus no infirmity in the impugned order by which the value of the imported marble blocks is enhanced Redemption fine and penalty were imposed 20% and 5% of the CIF value as decided in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VERSUS STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES & ORS. 2011 (1) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of value in case of marble blocks imported from Turkey
2. Redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority
3. Production of bill of entry and invoices as evidence
4. Comparison of import values with previous years

Analysis:
1. Enhancement of value in case of marble blocks imported from Turkey:
The importer challenged the enhancement of value for marble blocks imported from Turkey, arguing that the values relied upon by the Revenue were from previous years and not relevant to the current import. The Revenue contended that the same quality of marble was imported from Turkey in the previous year at a higher value. The Tribunal found that the declared value for Turkish marble was enhanced based on earlier imports by other importers. The importer failed to produce a bill of entry to support their claim, providing only two invoices. As there was no evidence of a decline in Turkish marble prices during the relevant period, the Tribunal upheld the enhancement of value, dismissing the importer's appeal.

2. Redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority:
The adjudicating authority imposed redemption fines and penalties on the importer for importing marble blocks in violation of the Import-Export Policy. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the quantum of redemption fine and penalty based on previous tribunal decisions. The Revenue appealed, arguing against the reliance on those decisions due to pending references in the High Court. However, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision in a similar case where redemption fine and penalty were upheld at 20% and 5% of the CIF value. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

3. Production of bill of entry and invoices as evidence:
The Revenue raised concerns about the importer not producing a bill of entry to support their claim, relying only on two invoices. The Tribunal noted the lack of clarity on whether the assessing authority accepted the invoice values. Ultimately, the failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence weakened the importer's case, leading to the dismissal of their appeal regarding the value enhancement for Turkish marble.

4. Comparison of import values with previous years:
Both parties compared the import values of marble blocks from Turkey with previous years to support their arguments. The Revenue highlighted imports from 2001 to 2002, while the importer emphasized the import in 2003. The Tribunal considered these comparisons but ultimately based its decision on the lack of evidence regarding any decline in Turkish marble prices during the relevant period. This comparison played a role in determining the relevance of past import values in the current case.