Case Law Details
River Side Impex Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that mere acceptance of the reassessed value and payment thereof will not be sufficient to confirm the allegations of undervaluation. Burden on the department to prove mis-declaration and undervaluation not discharged. Hence, differential duty demand set aside.
Facts- The appellant imported goods called Brass Ceramic Cartridge (L) size 1/2” Parts for use in Sanitary ware. However, the goods covered under the said Bill of Entry were got examined and the container was also weighed. The net weight was found as 21120 kg., however, the weight as per packaging list was 20160 kg. whereas the weight declared in Bill of Entry was 18144 kg. Thus 2976 kg. weight of the consignment was found in excess than the declared weight. The value declared in said Bill of Entry was also observed to be low. Accordingly, goods were seized u/s. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Based on the statement of authorized representative of the appellant and the report of market survey that the declared assessable value of Rs. 28,08,128/- in the Bill of Entry No. 8051193 dated 02.01.2017 was rejected in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 hereinafter referred as Valuation Rules and the value was reassessed at Rs. 55,83,280/- with the total reassessed duty of Rs. 14,75,563/-. The already paid duty of Rs. 7,42,139/- was acknowledged to have been paid. The goods were confiscated with an option of getting those released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and the penalty of Rs. 7,33,243/- was imposed upon the appellant vide the order-in-original when it was challenged the findings have been confirmed by upholding the order vide the order-in-appeal under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
Conclusion- Held that in the original submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it is mentioned that to avoid any delay and the demurrage charges, in case the consignment is held by the Customs Authority, that the appellant opted to pay the differential amount demanded by them. The voluntary payment hence cannot be called as admission of the appellant towards alleged mis-declaration for value from the above discussion. Since it is apparent that the Department has not followed the statutory procedure nor there was any mis-declaration of quantity as alleged, the mere acceptance of the reassessed value and payment thereof will not be sufficient to confirm the allegations of under valuation. The burden was still on the Department to prove the allegations levelled. The said burden has not been discharged.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
