2013 (12) TMI 91 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Import of superheat resistant latex rubber thread in ribbon form - Bar of limitation - Held that - goods are imported by the appellants are powder quoted as per the invoice and we have examined the bills of the goods imported on higher price where the goods are of silicon coated. We further examined the price of the goods imported during the period July, 2007 to September, 2007 wherein the price of imported goods similar to the goods in question, the Bill of Entry dated 6-7-2007 is showing that the import has been made at @ US 1.21 per kg and other two invoices dated 19-11-2007 showing the price almost Rs. 53/- per kg. The Bill of Entry relied on by the adjudicating authority dated 29-1-2008 cannot be considered as reliable document as import has taken place in October, 2007 to October, 2008. In these circumstances, the appellant has been able to show that the quality of goods are different from the goods and value which were relied on by the adjudicating authority for loading of the value - in these cases the show cause notices admittedly have been issued beyond the period of six months and there is no allegation of suppression, concealment of facts, fraud, etc., therefore, we hold that the show-cause notices issued to the appellants are barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Undervaluation of imported goods, Time-barred show-cause notices

Analysis:
The appeal involved a case where the appellants were accused of undervaluing imported superheat resistant latex rubber thread in ribbon form. The facts revealed that the appellants imported goods at a declared price but were later accused of undervaluation based on complaints from the industry association. Show-cause notices were issued, and after adjudication, differential duty, redemption fine, and penalties were imposed, which were challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed. The appellants contended that the goods imported were of substandard powder coated, not silicon coated, and therefore, not identical to previous imports used as a basis for valuation enhancement. Additionally, they argued that the show-cause notices were time-barred.

Upon detailed examination, the Tribunal found that the goods imported by the appellants were indeed powder coated, as per the invoice, and differed from the silicon-coated goods used for valuation comparison. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the Bill of Entry relied upon for valuation enhancement, as it pertained to imports outside the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the loading of value based on these grounds was not sustainable. Moreover, it was observed that the show-cause notices were issued beyond the statutory six-month period, with no allegations of suppression, concealment, or fraud, rendering them time-barred.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on both issues. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief. The stay applications were also disposed of accordingly.