2011 (7) TMI 825 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Mis-declaration of the description of the goods as also the value - The statements of the two indenting agents are general in nature indicating that the landed price of the fatty acids is around US 440. In neither of the statements the said indenting agents have admitted that the goods imported by the appellant were invoiced on the lower side - There is no evidence recording any extra payment to the supplier. Rejection of transaction value - held that - There is no direct evidence indicating that the price reflected on the invoice is not the correct transaction value we do not find any justifiable reasons to uphold the charge of the Revenue - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Customs duty valuation, Mis-declaration of goods, Confiscation, Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Customs Duty Valuation:
The Commissioner of Customs confiscated 37.00 MT of mixed fatty acid due to mis-declaration of goods and value. The appellant declared the assessable value as US$ 185 per MT, but the Commissioner enhanced it to US$ 420 per MT, confirming customs duty of Rs. 2,88,441/-. The appellant was also penalized under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The goods were seized on suspicion of mis-declaration in value and description. The Central Revenue Control Laboratory's report confirmed the goods as fatty acids, but the dutiability was unclear due to high FFA. Statements from indenting agents revealed discrepancies in prices declared by Indian importers compared to actual prices in Malaysia.

Confiscation and Penalty:
Proceedings were initiated against the appellant based on the suspicion of mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and rejection of the transaction value. The Commissioner relied on various pieces of evidence to support the decision, including intelligence reports and statements from indenting agents.

Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Decision:
The appellant argued that the evidence presented by the Commissioner was general and not directly related to their import. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the acceptance of transaction value unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal found no direct evidence contradicting the declared price, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the mis-declaration of goods or value. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of direct evidence to challenge the transaction value and cited legal precedents to support their decision. The appellant was granted consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside.