2025 (1) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Customs valuation enhancement rejected due to inadequate Chartered Engineer report lacking quality justification and specification comparisons

SHRI HANIF KAPADIA, SHRI PARWEJ ALAM, SHRI DIRGESH DEDHIA, SHRI SARFARAZ KAMANI, RAJYOG ENTERPRISES, SHRI ASIF SATHI, SKYBLUE INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY Versus Commissioner of CUSTOMS - Mundra Customs

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals challenging customs valuation enhancement. The tribunal found that the Chartered Engineer's report used to enhance ... Mis-declaration of imported goods - enhancement of value - Chartered Engineer without making any inquiry, adopted the domestic market value of the imported goods - HELD THAT:- The present case arises out of examination and seizure of the imported goods pertaining to 18 import consignments. We find that M/s Skyblue International Trading Company have imported total 5 import consignment which were examined by the officers of DRI and during examination of the goods mis-declaration were observed in respect of value, quantity and other material particulars. The Ld. Commissioner in impugned order held that the declared value in respect to the containers is liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007 and to be re-determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 readwith Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. The report of the Chartered Engineer merits to be considered as the basis for arriving at assessable value of impugned goods. The Ld. Commissioner relied upon the Chartered Engineer reports and enhanced the value in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Chartered Engineer completely failed to provide the justification as to what was the difference in the quality imported by the Appellant vis-a-vis the quality of goods which had been examined for arriving at the assessable value. The Chartered Engineer also failed to provide the details with respect to who were the suppliers / manufacturers for the goods which were examined against the imported goods to arrive the conclusion that the disputed goods are undervalued. Also, what were the differences with respect to the specification and characteristics of the goods making it differentiable with respect to the imported goods. It is also not provided what quality parameters were examined so as to differentiate the two products. In the present case, the IEC holder lent the IEC to Mr. Asif Sathi who carried the imported goods to his godown/warehouse located at Mumbai. In such circumstances, merely no business activities were noticed at the time of investigation would not lead to alleged smuggling of goods. In this context we also find that there is no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 which prohibits the use of IEC of third party who is holding valid IEC Number. In view of the above, the Appellant cannot be made liable for the alleged imports made in the name of IEC holders. Penalties u/s 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There is no reason whatsoever to impose penalties on the three Appellants, accordingly penalties imposed on the said appellants are liable to be set aside. Conclusion - i) The Chartered Engineer’s certificate and value of the subject imported goods worked out on the basis of said certificate are hereby rejected. ii) The value of subject imported goods shall be assessed on the basis of contemporaneous import/NIDB data after providing the details/ documents to the appellants. Only in cases where contemporaneous value based on NIDB is not available, the value shall be determined as per Valuation Rules sequentially and by deductive method on the price and the details/ documents of such price shall be first provided to the appellant. iii) The issue of penalty and the redemption fine in the matter being remanded is kept open. Appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment addresses several core issues:Whether the valuation of imported goods by the Chartered Engineer was accurate and justified under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.Whether the imported goods were liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(f), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the use of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) by a third party constitutes a violation under the Customs Act.Whether penalties imposed under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act were justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValuation of Imported GoodsLegal Framework and Precedents: The valuation was governed by Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, particularly Rule 9.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found the Chartered Engineer's valuation report lacked detailed justification and failed to consider international market prices or contemporaneous imports.Key Evidence and Findings: The Chartered Engineer's report was deemed insufficient as it did not provide a basis for the valuation differences.Application of Law to Facts: The court rejected the valuation based on the Chartered Engineer's report and emphasized the need for using contemporaneous import data.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued against the Chartered Engineer's valuation, citing lack of evidence and comparison with international prices.Conclusions: The valuation by the Chartered Engineer was rejected, and the case was remanded for reassessment using contemporaneous import data.Liability for ConfiscationLegal Framework and Precedents: Sections 111(d), 111(f), and 111(m) of the Customs Act were considered for confiscation.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the goods were not prohibited, and the misdeclaration was not substantiated with evidence.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the goods were not prohibited and the alleged misdeclaration was due to supplier errors.Application of Law to Facts: The court concluded that confiscation under the cited sections was not applicable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that the misdeclaration was unintentional and due to supplier errors.Conclusions: The confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(f), and 111(m) was not justified.Use of IEC by Third PartyLegal Framework and Precedents: The use of IEC by a third party was examined under the Customs Act and related case law.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no provision in the Customs Act prohibiting the use of another's IEC.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the IEC holder had authorized the use of their IEC and participated in investigations.Application of Law to Facts: The court concluded that the use of IEC by a third party did not constitute a violation.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants cited case law supporting the legality of using another's IEC.Conclusions: The use of IEC by a third party was deemed legal and not a basis for liability.Imposition of PenaltiesLegal Framework and Precedents: Penalties were considered under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts to justify penalties.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of evidence showing intentional misclassification or abetment.Application of Law to Facts: The court concluded that penalties were not justified due to lack of evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued against penalties citing lack of evidence and intent.Conclusions: Penalties imposed under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA were set aside.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The Chartered Engineer’s certificate and value of the subject imported goods worked out on the basis of said certificate are hereby rejected.''The value of subject imported goods shall be assessed on the basis of contemporaneous import/NIDB data.''In view of the above, the Appellant cannot be made liable for the alleged imports made in the name of IEC holders.''There is no reason whatsoever to impose penalties on the three Appellants namely Shri Hanif Kapadia, Shri Parwej Alam and Shri Dirgesh Dhedhia, accordingly penalties imposed on the said appellants are liable to be set aside.'The judgment emphasizes the necessity of using accurate valuation methods and contemporaneous data, clarifies the legality of using another's IEC, and sets aside penalties due to lack of evidence.