Case Law Details
Dinesh Dhola Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported rough diamonds unjustified as if the Kimberly Process Certification was suspected to be faulty the verification should have been initiated with issuing authority.
Facts- These appeals have been preferred by M/s Hari Darshan Exports Pvt Ltd and Dinesh Dhola against the order of first appellate authority which, on challenge to order of original authority, assessing the goods on value of ₹1,23,89,870 by recourse to rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 after rejecting declared value of ₹2,48,95,371 under the authority of rule 12 therein, confiscating the imported goods under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 but allowing redemption u/s. 125 of Customs Act, 1962.
Notably, appellant had imported 13278.23 carats of ‘rough diamonds’ against bill of entry from Belgium with declared value of US$ 345,769.04 and furnished invoice as well as Kimberly Process Certificate (KPC). Valuation, entrusted to ‘trade panel’, as per prevailing mechanism, elicited the allegation that the actual value was substantially lower leading to proceedings before the original authority that was found to be not legal and proper by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs.
Conclusion- 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
