2000 (8) TMI 459 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness and propriety of dropping proceedings against the respondents.
2. Valuation of imported goods - MMM prime grade or regenerated 2nd grade.
3. Barred appeal by limitation due to review order timing.
4. Comparison of imported goods with identical goods imported by another company.
5. Mis-declaration of goods and evasion of duty.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Correctness and propriety of dropping proceedings against the respondents
The Revenue challenged the dropping of proceedings against the respondents based on a show cause notice alleging undervaluation of imported goods. The Commissioner had initiated proceedings based on a certificate from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory confirming the imported goods as MMM prime grade. However, the respondents argued that the goods were MMM regenerated 2nd grade. The Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings was challenged on the grounds of valuation discrepancies.

Issue 2: Valuation of imported goods - MMM prime grade or regenerated 2nd grade
The dispute revolved around the valuation of the imported goods, with the Commissioner initially accepting the value declared by the importer at US$ 300 per MT. However, subsequent analysis by various laboratories and comparison with similar goods imported by another company at US$ 1700 per MT led to the conclusion that the imported goods were mis-declared as regenerated 2nd grade, whereas they were actually prime grade MMM. The Tribunal upheld the value of US$ 1700 per MT for the imported goods.

Issue 3: Barred appeal by limitation due to review order timing
The importer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timing of the review order by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, claiming that the appeal was barred by limitation. However, upon examination of the review order date, it was found that the review order was passed within one year from the Commissioner's order, thus rejecting the limitation argument raised by the importer.

Issue 4: Comparison of imported goods with identical goods imported by another company
The Tribunal considered the value of identical goods imported by another company at US$ 1700 per MT as a benchmark for determining the assessable value of the goods imported by the respondents. The lack of arguments against this value by the importer led to the acceptance of US$ 1700 per MT as the value of the imported goods.

Issue 5: Mis-declaration of goods and evasion of duty
The Tribunal found that the importer mis-declared the goods as regenerated 2nd grade to evade payment of actual duty. Subsequent analysis and comparison with similar imports led to the conclusion that the imported goods were prime quality MMM, resulting in the confirmation of the duty demand raised in the show cause notice.

Issue 6: Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act
Due to the mis-declaration of goods and evasion of duty, the Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the respondents. The appeal was allowed, confirming the duty demand and penalty imposed on the respondents for their actions.