Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 347 - AT - CustomsUndervaluation - Confirming duty along with the interest and penalties of the undervalued imported goods by the Custom Authorities/Revenue Authorities. - The Counsel for appellants submits that the values of the consignments were once loaded by the Customs Authorities at the time of import and hence the Revenue authorities cannot load it again through another proceeding. They rely on many decisions of judicial forums to support the above argument. Held that:- Nothing from case of Eicher Tractors Ltd [ 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] can apply to the facts of this case where there are evidences to prove the undervaluation of the goods except evidence regarding remittance of the extra consideration. It is in the context of this that Revenue is pointing out that the transaction was between closely related persons, with the appellants acting just as conduits, who could easily do such transactions without getting noticed by Government authorities. Existence of certain facts has to inferred based on acts that are proved and there is no reason to insist of producing proof of aspects which could be easily hidden in the circumstances of the case. On an overall appreciation of facts before us we find the following relevant facts. The impugned imported goods are something needed by many manufacturers in India. The importers are neither manufacturers who consume the goods in their own manufacturing process or traders, who import the goods and make available the goods at competitive prices to manufacturers in India at arm’s length. The importers in question were acting as mere conduits between suppliers in China and actual buyers who used it in further manufacture and having close nexus with the supplier in China. In fact there is only one person behind the three importers. This person cannot demonstrate any special skill or circumstances enabling him to get the impugned goods at low prices. The inference of undervaluation in such circumstances is quite reasonable. So when contemporaneous imports of the goods are shown the burden to prove bona fides definitely shifted to the importers. At such a juncture the main defense is that they had not declared the full details at the time of import and hence their goods were different. The specifications declared at the time of importation are sketchy. There is nothing to show that the goods manufactured using the components imported by them were of any inferior quality. In fact their prices were competitive only to the extent of duty evasion engineered in these imports. Once the burden had shifted to the importer to prove that the declared values were correct the appellants have hardly done anything to discharge such burden except arguments about possible difference in specifications which they chose not to declare at the time of import. They only want to take advantage of the fact that their declarations were vague at the time of import and for that reason their price has to be considered to be lower.The four appeals are disposed of in the above terms by giving partial relief in respect of penalty imposed under the Customs Act subject to condition.
|