Barfo Impex Vs Principal Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
The present order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, disposed of two appeals challenging Orders-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2022, which had upheld rejection of declared transaction values, enhancement of assessable value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of duties, redemption fines, and penalties on the importer.
The appellant was engaged in the import of automobile parts. Based on intelligence alleging mis-declaration of brands and undervaluation, consignments imported in October and November 2017 were examined after clearance. During examination and subsequent searches, goods bearing names of reputed brands were found, though no brand had been declared in the Bills of Entry. The department alleged intentional suppression, undervaluation, and misdeclaration, leading to seizure of goods, rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, redetermination of value under Rule 7, confirmation of differential duty, confiscation, and penalties.
The appellant contended that the goods were either unbranded or misbranded, bearing fake markings only on packaging to enhance marketability, and were not genuine branded goods. It was argued that there was no evidence of undervaluation, no comparable import data, no proof of extra consideration paid to suppliers, and that valuation rules were not applied sequentially. It was also contended that no show cause notice had been issued, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
