2006 (6) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Valuation Method for Imported Goods, Reduces Redemption Fine

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's valuation method for imported goods, rejecting the appellants' claim of defects and substandard quality. The ... Valuation - Comparable goods - Redemption fine - Quantum of Issues:1. Enhancement of value of imported goods2. Quality of imported goods and valuation methods3. Imposition of redemption fine and penaltyAnalysis:1. The appellants imported goods described as 'glass epoxy copper clad panels in grade FR-4 and thickness 1.6 mm' with a declared value of Rs. 9.32 lakhs. Customs did not accept this value, leading to a show cause notice for enhancement of value. The Commissioner of Customs passed an order increasing the value to Rs. 45.90 lakhs, resulting in a differential duty demand of Rs. 22,37,003/-. Confiscation with an option to redeem on a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was also imposed.2. The appellants contested the enhancement of value, claiming the goods were not of prime quality and had defects. They provided a fax from the manufacturers to support their claim. The adjudicating Commissioner did not address this fax or conduct testing as requested by the appellants. The appellants argued that comparable values were ignored, and the Commissioner should have used the Deductive Method for valuation. The Department contended that the goods were not declared defective, and multiple examinations found no issues. The FR-4 grade of the imported goods was discussed, emphasizing its standard quality for PCB construction.3. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not declare the goods as substandard in the bill of entry. Physical examination results and reports from testing indicated the goods were of prime quality. The appellants failed to provide evidence of higher quantity discounts for valuation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's valuation method based on actual users' imports. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs, considering the differential duty demand, while the penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs was maintained. The amount already deposited by the appellants was to be adjusted against the duty demand. The appeal was partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine.