2019 (8) TMI 1553 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns decision on imported goods valuation, penalties, and duty demand

Navdeep Gupta, M/s. S.G. Impex, M/s. Sai Siddhi Shipping, Ashok Bhikaji Mahadik Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai

The Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the declared value of imported goods by M/s. S.G. Impex and imposing penalties, confiscation, and a ... Principles of Natural justice - appellants submitted that the impugned order has not considered the vital aspects with regard to the subject imports made by the appellant - fraudulent import of goods - HELD THAT:- Certain information/records submitted by the appellant namely, comparative chart along with Bill of Entry showing contemporaneous import made by the importer M/s. S.G. Impex; data with regard to the imported goods reflected in the system etc., were not properly examined at the adjudication stage. Further, the submissions of the appellant that the valuation should be done under Rule 4 ibid were also not considered in proper prospective. Thus, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the show cause notice and dealt with in the impugned order cannot be considered as proper and justified - the documentary evidences submitted by the appellants at this juncture for a decision on merit cannot also be considered as proper inasmuch as such submissions were not considered properly in support of confirmation of the adjudged demands at the original stage. The matter should go back to the original authority for a detailed fact finding on the merits of the case, based on the available documents/records - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Customs valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 (4) and Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; Confiscation of goods; Redemption fine; Differential duty demand; Penalties under Section 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The case involved the import of goods by M/s. S.G. Impex, where discrepancies were found during examination leading to a re-determination of the value by the department. The importer was alleged to have undervalued goods by dismantling car stereos into separate components. The department initiated show cause proceedings, resulting in an order rejecting the declared value and imposing penalties, confiscation, and a demand for differential duty. The appellants challenged this order before the Tribunal.The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and found that crucial aspects of the case were not adequately examined during adjudication. The appellant's comparative chart of contemporaneous imports and other relevant data were not properly evaluated. The valuation method under Rule 4 was not duly considered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the issues raised in the show cause notice and addressed in the impugned order lacked proper justification. The documentary evidence submitted by the appellants was not thoroughly assessed to confirm the demands. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the original authority for a detailed re-examination based on available documents and records.By setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal directed a fresh consideration of all issues involved in the case. The original authority was instructed to adjudicate the matter afresh, taking into account the records available and those to be submitted by the appellants. It was emphasized that the appellants should be granted a personal hearing before a new decision is made. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for a comprehensive review and assessment of the case.