Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1164 - AT - CustomsValuation - Undervaluation of imports to evade duty - allegation of paying excess consideration by diversion of funds - Scope of SCN - Territorial limits of national jurisdiction - it was alleged that a parallel transaction on the same goods operated entirely outside the country between M/s IMR Metallurgical Resources AG and the Singapore-based subsidiary of the appellant-importer, M/s Knowledge International Strategy Systems Pte Limited, involved procurement from mines of coal that did not meet the threshold specifications and for consideration far less than that declared at the time of import - interpretation of statute. Held that:- A harmonious construction of section 46, requiring all goods imported into India to be covered by correct entry, which includes specified particulars, and of section 47, entitling goods to be cleared for home consumption, is that such goods, as are prohibited or have not discharged the duty liability as assessed, should remain in custody without being cleared for home consumption. Goods that are cleared for home consumption carry with them the presumption of duty liability having been discharged in full and the goods are not prohibited for import under any law. It is only these two aspects of the goods that can deny clearance for home consumption. Once the goods have been cleared, they cease to be imported goods within the meaning assigned in section 2 of Customs Act, 1962 thus ending jurisdiction over the goods under Customs Act, 1962. Revival of the jurisdiction is contingent upon establishing that duty has not been paid in full or that the goods are prohibited for import. Assessment of duty is empowered under section 17 as final, or as provisional for subsequent finalization, under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. The impugned goods had been provisionally assessed to duty under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 which, upon subsequent finalization, rendering a closure to the assessment and implied freezing of duty liability. It is not the case of Revenue that duty has been short-levied thus foreclosing the invoking of section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - the goods have been cleared for home consumption in the most legally undeniable manner – one that does not admit of recall under the provisions relating to imported goods which prescribes only two inherent and inextricable pre-requisites – duty and prohibition - for such clearance. A conjoint reading of the definition and the authority to proceed with confiscation supra would lend credence to the inference that goods that have been properly cleared for home consumption, as provided in section 47 of Customs Act, 1962, cannot be subjected to confiscation. This casual dismissal of application of rule 5 and 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is contrary to the provisions of law. The adjudicating authority is not in compliance with the mechanism prescribed in law. In view of our extensive findings on the scope of actionability on goods cleared for home consumption, the compliance with the valuation scheme of Customs Act, 1962 and the erroneous finding on facts, we do not propose to examine the grounds of appeal that were not pressed during the hearing - appeal allowed.
|