Appellant's written acceptance of enhanced values under section 147 makes undervaluation assessment binding for current entries

CESTAT upheld undervaluation assessment for two Bills of Entry where appellant voluntarily accepted enhanced values based on NIDB data, making written acceptance binding under section 147. Tribunal rejected appellant's challenge to transaction value rejection under Rule 12, confirming re-determination under Rule 5 using contemporaneous imports of similar goods was proper. However, demand for five past Bills of Entry was set aside due to insufficient evidence of appellant's acceptance. Confiscation and redemption fine for current Bills of Entry upheld, but set aside for past entries. Individual penalty reduced from Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 reflecting sustained demand only. Appeal partially allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of value in respect of the two current Bills of Entry.
2. Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of value in respect of the five past Bills of Entry.
3. Confiscation of the goods imported in the two Bills of Entry and their release on payment of redemption fine.
4. Order holding the goods imported under the five past Bills of Entry liable to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine since they were not available.
5. Imposition of penalty on the importer under section 114A.
6. Imposition of penalty on Shri Qasim under section 112(a).

Summary:

Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of value in respect of the two current Bills of Entry:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12 and its re-determination based on the National Import Database (NIDB) and Chartered Engineer's certificate. The appellant had voluntarily accepted the re-determined values and agreed to pay the differential duty. The Tribunal emphasized that "what is admitted need not be proved," referencing Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the re-assessment of duty in respect of the two current Bills of Entry was found sustainable.

Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of value in respect of the five past Bills of Entry:
The Tribunal found that the demand of differential duty for the five past Bills of Entry was not sustainable. The goods had been cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, and there was no evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal noted that the statement by the appellant did not support the case of the Revenue, as it did not provide details or agree to the re-assessment of the past Bills of Entry.

Confiscation of the goods imported in the two Bills of Entry and their release on payment of redemption fine:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods imported under the two current Bills of Entry under Section 111(m) and their release on payment of redemption fine. The fines imposed were deemed fair given the factual matrix of the case.

Order holding the goods imported under the five past Bills of Entry liable to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine since they were not available:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods imported under the five past Bills of Entry and the imposition of redemption fine. It was noted that goods not available cannot be seized or confiscated. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand under Section 28 re-assessing the duty in respect of these five Bills of Entry was not sustainable.

Imposition of penalty on the importer under section 114A:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 114A as the demand of differential duty under Section 28 in respect of the past Bills of Entry was not sustainable. The re-assessment of duty in the two current Bills of Entry was a matter of re-assessment under Section 17, not a case of duty not levied or short-levied under Section 28.

Imposition of penalty on Shri Qasim under section 112(a):
The Tribunal upheld the penalty on Shri Qasim under Section 112(a) but reduced it from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that Shri Qasim was directly connected with the filing of the two Bills of Entry and the values of the goods did not match the imported goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 111(m).

Conclusion:
- Customs Appeal No. 3/2011 was partly allowed by upholding the re-assessment of duty and confiscation of goods in the two current Bills of Entry, while setting aside the demand of duty and confiscation in the five past Bills of Entry.
- Customs Appeal No. 4/2011 was partly allowed by reducing the penalty on Shri Mohd. Qasim Khan from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

---