Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 438 - AT - CustomsUndervaluation of imported consignments - Appellants were importing zinc skimming and zinc ash for using it as a raw material – Declared the value of such goods to be US$ 380 per MT – DG Revenue Intelligence got information that the actual value paid by the appellants for such goods were much higher than the value declared at the time of import for paying customs duty - Penalty challenged is imposed u/s 112 of Customs Act - Penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act. Held that:- Goods imported from USA there is clear evidence of mis-declaration of value and for that reason the goods were liable for confiscation and penalties were to be imposed on the importer for that reason. In favour of revenue Prices for zinc skimming imported from USA cannot be applied for prices of such goods or zinc ash imported from other countries because value of these goods depends on the percentage of zinc contents in this material. Basically the items in question are goods of which quality can vary and therefore it is difficult to agree to any addition in value, based on the fact that the appellants have suppressed value of goods imported from another country. There is no reason to adopt a different standard for the appellant in cases where clear evidence of remittance of extra consideration is not adduced by Revenue. Therefore, imports from countries other than USA the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants. In favour of assessee Their contention that they should not be asked to pay any additional Countervailing duty or consequent SAD element, is to be accepted. However, the plea that Countervailing duty and SAD initially paid should be adjusted against shortfall in other types of customs duty paid at the time of import is not maintainable. There is a mechanism for getting relief of CVD and SAD paid through Cenvat credit. Therefore we not able to agree with the contention that the excess CVD and SAD paid should be adjusted against Customs duty short paid at the time of import. In favour of revenue We uphold the demand for differential customs duty (other than CVD and consequent difference in SAD) on account of value difference demanded in respect of consignments imported from USA. The demand for differential duties on account of imports from other countries and differential duty on account of CVD from USA are not maintainable. Differential SAD will have to be calculated on the basis that CVD is not leviable. So the question of differential duty on this count is not likely to arise. In favour of assessee Adjudicating authority had confiscated goods which were not available for confiscation. Even the bond executed for another reason namely to wait for test reports, had been discharged prior to adjudication. So we hold that the confiscation of goods and consequent redemption fine to be not maintainable
|