2013 (10) TMI 1203 - AT - Customs

Appeal granted on fine & penalty but rejected enhanced valuation by Customs. Upheld licensing rules & accurate valuation importance.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the redemption fine and penalty while rejecting the enhanced valuation imposed by Customs. The ... Valuation - Import of artificial marble slabs - Import of restricted goods without licence - Benefit of Notification No.41 (RE-2008)/2004 - 09 - Held that:- a restricted goods cannot be converted into freely imported goods since import was made without valid license and that is patent from record. Goods in question therefore do not loose the character of restricted goods. By artificial adoption of the value, restricted goods, do not become unrestricted goods. Accordingly valuation adopted by Customs has no basis on law for which declared value rejected by Customs is reversed. Once the restricted goods imported were subject to licence condition which was not fulfilled by the appellant, there is no scope to interfere with the redemption fine and penalty imposed by Customs. Therefore, these two levies are confirmed. Ld. Adjudicating Authority shall verify the challans, if any, showing deposit of duty, redemption fine and penalty and grant consequential relief of refund if any that may arise upon proper verification in accordance with law - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Enhanced valuation of imported goods2. Imposition of customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty3. Characterization of goods as restricted or freely importable4. Validity of redemption fine and penaltyAnalysis:Issue 1: Enhanced valuation of imported goodsThe appellant imported artificial marble slabs, initially declared at USD 20 per square meter, a value that classified the goods as restricted under a specific notification. However, Customs increased the valuation to USD 50 per square meter, treating the goods as freely importable. The appellant contended that the enhancement was unwarranted and chose to pay the imposed fine, penalty, and duty to clear the goods.Issue 2: Imposition of customs duty, redemption fine, and penaltyCustoms imposed customs duty, a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 based on the enhanced valuation of USD 50 per square meter. The appellant disputed the valuation and the consequent levies, arguing that the original declared value of USD 20 per square meter should have been accepted.Issue 3: Characterization of goods as restricted or freely importableThe appellant maintained that despite Customs adopting a higher value of USD 50 per square meter, the goods should still be considered restricted as they were imported without a valid license. The Tribunal agreed, ruling that the artificial adoption of a higher value did not change the restricted nature of the goods, and the declared value of USD 20 per square meter should be upheld.Issue 4: Validity of redemption fine and penaltySince the imported goods were restricted and required a license that the appellant did not possess, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty by Customs. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to verify any duty payments and grant refunds accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the redemption fine and penalty while rejecting the enhanced valuation imposed by Customs. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to licensing requirements for restricted goods and maintaining the accurate valuation of imported items.