Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 500 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - hydraulic pump - rejection of declared value - enhancement in value based on contemporaneous import - propriety of exercise of jurisdiction to reject the declared value of the goods imported by the appellant - Held that:- The declared value appears to be unduly low in comparison with other imports and the price at which the manufacturer sold ‘hydraulic pumps’; it is also not less significant that the appellant failed to produce an invoice from the manufacturer. Considering all these aspects, the rejection of declared value stands upheld. The responsibility of the assessing officer does not cease with rejection of declared value and, in accordance with the sequential hierarchy of valuation prescribed for resort to Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, revised assessable value was to be arrived at. Failure to do so would render rejection under rule 10 A to be an exercise in futility - Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 does accord flexibility to vary the declared price of ‘contemporaneous’ imports to adjust for slight variations. It appears that the adjudicating authority has, accordingly, adopted value which coincides with the price declared in the imports effected by the group concern subsequent to the import of the impugned goods - there are no reasons to discard the enhanced value adopted by the adjudicating authority. Redemption fine - impugned goods not available - Held that:- It is clear from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in re Finesse Creation Inc [2009 (8) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that redemption fine cannot be imposed on goods that are not available for taking possession of upon confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 - There is no dispute that the impugned goods are not available, redemption fine cannot be imposed. There are two discrete processes leading to recovery of differential duty. Recourse to enhancement of value does not, ipso facto, arise from mis-declaration of the value in the bill of entry but from the particular scheme of assessment. Accordingly, invoking of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 must rest upon evidences other than the mere fact of enhancement of assessable value - Evidence of mis-declaration should be made available to the noticee before doing so. Accordingly, in the present circumstances the confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 lacks sanction of law. With the setting aside of liability to confiscation, the invoking of section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 also fails. The recovery of duty under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 on the impugned goods upheld - the redemption fine and penalties are set aside - appeal allowed in part.
|