Tribunal overturns duty assessment on SKINA cameras due to lack of evidence, issues with documents.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Customs' order assessing duty on SKINA brand cameras, confirming a differential duty demand, confiscating goods, and imposing penalties under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found the department's evidence insufficient to prove under-invoicing, as the burden of proof was not met, citing issues with the authenticity of documents from Hong Kong firms. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.

---

---

Issues involved: Assessment of duty on imported SKINA brand 35 mm still cameras, differential duty demand, confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalties u/s 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Commissioner of Customs ordered the assessment of duty on SKINA brand 35 mm still cameras by debiting assessable value, confirmed a differential duty demand, confiscated the goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine, and imposed penalties on the importer u/s 114A and on a partner of the importer firm u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The department relied on a draft statement of claim filed by Hong Kong firms and a declaration filed before the Hong Kong Customs to establish under-invoicing of the imported goods.

The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the foreign supplier regarding the draft statement of claim, noting that the values were inflated to cover losses and teach a lesson, and found the declaration filed before the Hong Kong Customs to be unsigned, thus questioning its authenticity.

The Tribunal held that the department failed to prove under-invoicing of the goods, as the burden of proof was not discharged, and consequently set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals.

---