Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1330 - AT - CustomsOvervaluation of imported goods - cut and polished diamonds - reliance placed upon two ‘trade advisory panel’ reports to discard the declaration - confiscation - penalties - difference between the declared value and the ascertained value is about 20% - request for cross-examination was rejected on the ground that the difference between the estimation of the first and the second panels was a mere 8.3%. In the light of these variations - HELD THAT:- There is no finding that the declared value is inconsistent with the essence of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 nor of any ground, within the prescription of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 enabling recourse to subsequent alternatives. Nor is there any narration in the impugned order that can lead us to conclude that the process set for invoking rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 had been taken to its logical conclusion. The value adopted in the impugned order has not been shown to lack the impediments enumerated in rule 9(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which is essential as the reasons that prompted the ‘trade advisory panel’ to arrive at the disputed values is not on record. There has been blatant disregard not only of the scheme of valuation, now in force and consistent with international convention, as set out in Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 but also in the particulars of process and method embodied therein. The re-determination of value is not in accordance with the law. As the penal consequences arise from confiscation based on illusory foundation, the detriment to the individual appellants lack authority of law - Appeal allowed.
|