2018 (12) TMI 558 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - it appeared that the value of the import consignment was mis-declared and it was required to be re-determined - Held that - In the instant case, having declared a price which is less than that of the scrap, the appellants cannot claim by any stretch of imagination that the value declared by them was correct. Moreover, there was discrepancy in the quantity also as found during the physical examination. The test report given by the Custom House Laboratory has indicated that the composition of the material in the impugned goods was far different from the one submitted by the appellants. These factors together would constitute beyond doubt reason to believe that the declared value was incorrect. Therefore, the declared price was rightly rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of quantity and value in import consignment; Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; Re-determination of value under Custom Valuation Rules (CVR), 1988; Applicability of Rule 7A of CVR, 1988; Justification for rejecting transaction value; Reliance on test reports from Customs House Laboratory.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No.16/2008 by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore regarding the import of padlocks by M/s. Thameema Trading Corporation. The goods were found to have an excess quantity of 170 dozen and a declared value lower than the raw material. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice for re-determination of value due to suspected mis-declaration. The appellants raised objections related to confiscation under Section 111(m), rejection of transaction value without sequential analysis, reliance on test reports, and cited Supreme Court cases.

The departmental representative argued that mis-declaration was prima facie evident, considering the importer's status as the sole distributor. The Commissioner re-determined the value under Rule 7A of CVR, 1988, due to the importer's exclusive distribution rights. The re-determined value led to a demand for differential duty, penalties, testing charges, redemption fine, and appropriation of bank guarantees.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the declared value unreasonably lower than the raw material cost, indicating mis-declaration. Discrepancies in quantity and material composition supported the rejection of the declared value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to re-determine the value under Rule 7A of CVR, 1988, based on valid reasons, dismissing the appellant's submissions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the re-determination of value under Rule 7A of CVR, 1988. The decision was pronounced in open court on 04/12/2018.