2017 (12) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order based on precedent emphasizing evidence in customs cases

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the precedent set in the case of M/s. Tanmay ... Valuation of imported goods - Coloured Self Adhesive Paper Tape - enhancement of value - entire case of the department is that the goods were mis-declared in their description/classification and there was undervaluation of the goods - Held that: - As for the charge of mis-declaration, the appellant had correctly declared the items as coloured reflective sheeting and had changed the description of the goods to coloured self adhesive paper tape at the instance of the customs officers. They had claimed classification under tariff heading 39199090. However, Bill of Lading and the invoice carried two different descriptions of the same product and it was for this reason, the customs officer directed them to declare as per Bill of Lading - Revenue seems to be presuming that the decision to change the description of the goods was taken in view of prior information regarding declaration of the impugned goods available with the Anti Smuggling staff. However, no evidence to support this belief is coming forward from the impugned order - Hence, the charge of mis-declaration of description of the goods is not tenable in these circumstances. Since the allegation in show cause notice was based on the similar type of goods in the case of M/s.Tanmay International [2017 (10) TMI 220 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], the above decision of this Tribunal in M/s.Tanmay International is squarely applicable to the present case, where it was held that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly concluded that the Department has not been able to adduce any evidence of contemporaneous import to support the value determined by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Mis-declaration of goods description and undervaluation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Mis-declaration of Goods DescriptionThe appellant declared the items as coloured reflective sheeting but changed it to coloured self-adhesive paper tape as directed by customs officers. The revenue alleged mis-declaration based on prior information, but no evidence supported this claim. The charge of mis-declaration of goods description was deemed not tenable due to the lack of evidence.Issue 2: UndervaluationThe department alleged undervaluation based on imports by other entities from the same supplier at a higher price. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the charge of mis-declaration of goods description, linking it to tainted declared value. However, the Tribunal in a similar case involving M/s. Tanmay International rejected the enhancement of value based on a proforma invoice. The Tribunal found that the department failed to provide evidence of contemporaneous imports to support the enhanced value, leading to the conclusion that the department's valuation was not justified.ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the precedent set in the case of M/s. Tanmay International. The decision highlighted the importance of providing concrete evidence to support allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation in customs cases. The judgment emphasized the need for a factual and evidence-based approach in determining the assessable value of imported goods, ensuring fair treatment for appellants facing such allegations.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of mis-declaration of goods description and undervaluation, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes in the case.