Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 772 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - rough diamonds - rejection of declared value - prohibited goods or not - discrepancy in value - absolute confiscation - penalty - redeption denied on the ground that the certificate submitted was not in conformity with other supporting documents - HELD THAT:- On perusal of invoice and airway bill, both of which have declared the weight and value of the ‘rough diamonds’ and the cavil on the lack of segregation in accordance with ‘lots’ comprising the consignment appears to be more procedural than substantive; indeed, there is no finding of variation in total quantity to cast doubts on the certificate. Thus, the only discrepancy that the lower authorities could fall back on was the value of the goods and, that too, by ascertainment in accordance with a procedure peculiar to the diamond industry. If the certification was suspected to be faulty or not pertinent to the impugned goods, necessary verification should have been initiated with issuing authorities and taken to its logical conclusion. No such exercise was undertaken and thus the denial is to be tested solely on conformity of the re-determination with law.
On the issue of valuation adopted for the ‘diamond’ industry, the Tribunal did have cause to consider it in depth on cross-appeals of Revenue - The order of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR SPECIAL CARGO AWAS CORPORATE POINT, MAKWANA LANE, MUMBAI VERSUS KIRAN GEMS PVT LTD AND KIRAN GEMS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VALLABHBHAI S PATEL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MAVBJIBHAI S PATEL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RAVIRAJ ANIL KUMAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KUSHAL KAMLES PATEL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2023 (6) TMI 1015 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that It is also not the case of the lower authorities that any other law, requiring declaration of ‘value’ in bill of entry for any purpose other than assessment to duty, has been breached insofar as the present dispute in concerned. In such circumstances, section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, or any Rules framed thereunder, is not of relevance to the impugned goods. Consequently, the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 cannot be brought to bear on the impugned goods.
In the light of the decision of the Tribunal, it is not just the legality of the re-valuation that is relevant in the present dispute but even the legality of considering the certification, based on declaration of supplier in country of export to appropriate authorities there, as liable to be discarded on the basis of a finding, such as it is, of re-valuation undertaken by customs authorities, empowered restrictedly and in a context, for purpose so limited as not to extend to verification of one detail in a certificate prescribed by law for furnishing at the time of import.
The impugned order is set aside and appeals allowed.