Daya Exports Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, allowed the appeals filed by the importer and set aside the orders of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the Revenue had failed to establish mis-declaration of value or description of the imported goods. The Tribunal found that the Chartered Engineer’s valuation lacked supporting evidence and that the re-determination of value, confiscation of goods, enhanced duty demand, redemption fine, and penalties could not be sustained.
The appellant had imported consignments of computer cabinet cases through three Bills of Entry. During examination, Customs officers found that the consignments contained motherboards, power supplies, cooling fans, heat sinks, original computer cabinets of HP, Dell and Lenovo, wiring and other components, but did not contain RAM, hard disks or processors. The goods bore signs of prior use, including scratches, stickers, labels and wear and tear, leading the authorities to conclude that they were old and used goods.
Chartered Engineers examined the consignments and reported that the goods were old and used, with one report estimating the market value at USD 25 per unit and another estimating USD 12 per unit. Based on these reports, the Revenue alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation, although it also recorded that there was no violation of the Waste Management Rules. The importer waived issuance of a show cause notice, following which the adjudicating authority rejected the declared description and transaction value, reclassified the goods as “Old & Used Barebone System without Hard Disk & RAM for Data Processing Machines,” enhanced the assessable value to USD 25 per unit, redetermined customs duty, confiscated the goods, imposed redemption fines and multiple penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, and directed reassessment of the Bills of Entry.
