2013 (10) TMI 1104 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds decision in under-valuation case, stresses need for evidence and factual documentation

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Versus M/s PREM COLOR LAB

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in a case involving under-valuation ... Import of Old machine - import of one set of used Noritsu Minilab system consisting of one Printer Processor Model QSS 2211V and one Film Processor Model QSF 430L with standard accessories with a declared value of US $7000 - Under valuation of property - Held that:- The value in this case has been loaded on the basis that on physical appearance the machine appears to be less than 10 years old and the residual life is more than 5 years. Undisputedly, the examination was carried out by the officers present in the dock and the same has been accepted without any corroboratory evidence.We further find that in the letter of the respondent dated 6.3.2003, it is clearly mentioned that the year of manufacture is 1995. From the year of introduction alone it cannot be concluded that the machine is not manufactured in the previous year.Therefore, merely on presumption and assumption it cannot be said that the machine is less than 10 years old - Decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against order setting aside lower adjudicating authority's decision based on under-valuation of imported goods.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute where the Revenue challenged an order that set aside the decision of the lower adjudicating authority regarding the under-valuation of imported goods. The respondent had imported a Noritsu Minilab system, declaring a 1995 year of manufacture and a value of US $7000. The lower adjudicating authority initiated proceedings based on suspicions of under-valuation, leading to the confiscation of the machine, a demand for differential duty, and the imposition of a penalty. The respondent then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who overturned the lower authority's decision, prompting the Revenue to appeal.The Revenue contended that the model of the imported machine was introduced in 1996, contradicting the respondent's claim of a 1995 manufacture year. However, the Tribunal noted that the value was increased based solely on the visual appearance of the machine, without additional evidence to support the assessment. The Tribunal highlighted that the respondent's documentation explicitly stated the 1995 year of manufacture, emphasizing that the introduction year of the model alone could not determine the actual manufacturing year. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that presumptions and assumptions were insufficient to establish the machine as less than 10 years old, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the under-valuation allegations, highlighting the importance of factual documentation over presumptions in such cases. The decision serves as a reminder of the necessity for thorough examination and substantiated claims in matters of valuation disputes to ensure fair and accurate assessments.