2025 (8) TMI 1235 - AT - Customs

Appeal allows importer; undervaluation, misclassification, confiscation and penalties under ss.112/114A set aside in import duty dispute

M/s. Swastik Stockists And Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Suresh Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata

M/s. Swastik Stockists And Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Suresh Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the transaction value declared by the importer for consignments of carpets, speakers and blankets can be rejected and re-determined on the basis of statements recorded during investigation, pro forma invoices recovered from the director's premises, and alleged information from foreign customs authorities. 2. Whether statements recorded during investigation (not examined by the adjudicating authority) are admissible and can be relied upon to establish undervaluation or suppression of value for purposes of rejecting transaction value. 3. Whether pro forma invoices and unsigned/unattested tabulations purportedly from foreign customs authorities constitute admissible and corroborative evidence to redetermine assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules. 4. Whether contemporaneous imports/bills of entry relied upon by the Department (not on record or not shown to be comparable) can be used to reject declared transaction value. 5. Whether the multi-media speakers imported are correctly classifiable under the tariff head claimed by the importer or liable to classification proposed by the Department attracting CVD on retail sale price basis. 6. Whether confiscation, redemption fine, invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties under Sections 112/114A/114AA/111/125/28/28AA/AB are sustainable where undervaluation/misclassification findings are unsupportable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2 - Reliance on investigation statements to reject transaction value Legal framework: Statements recorded during investigation are subject to statutory safeguards (equivalent to Section 9D/138B/138C regime referenced by the Tribunal) which require that such statements be examined by the adjudicating authority before being treated as relevant and admissible in quasi-criminal adjudication; uncorroborated statements cannot by themselves form basis for revaluation. Precedent treatment: Tribunal relied on precedents holding that statements recorded during search/investigation are admissible for proving truth of contents only where statutory conditions are complied with (i.e., examination before adjudicating authority and opinion that admission ought to be admitted in interest of justice); cited decisions include authorities disapproving reliance on such statements without statutory compliance. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the Director's recorded answers and found them neither consignment-specific nor period-specific confessions of undervaluation. The statements reflected vague, inconsistent answers (e.g., denial of relation to pro forma invoices; general statements about prices) and, crucially, were not put to the Director at the adjudication stage and examined by the adjudicating authority as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized protection against coerced/confessional statements and the statutory scheme aimed to prevent reliance on investigative admissions without judicial/adjudicatory scrutiny. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statements recorded during investigation are not admissible to prove undervaluation unless the person is examined by the adjudicating authority and the authority forms the statutory opinion; uncorroborated, vague investigative statements cannot sustain revaluation. Obiter - observations on the content of particular answers (e.g., that invoices were unrelated) support this ratio. Conclusions: Statements relied upon by the Department were insufficient, inadmissible for the purpose of rejecting transaction value, and could not sustain demands based on undervaluation. Issue 3 - Admissibility and probative value of pro forma invoices and foreign customs information Legal framework: Evidence to reject transaction value must be contemporaneous, comparable and admissible; pro forma invoices are quotations/offers and generally not a valid basis for enhancement of value; documents purportedly from foreign customs must be authenticated and comply with statutory evidentiary provisions to attract presumptions. Precedent treatment: Tribunal followed earlier Bench and higher court decisions that a pro forma invoice is a quotation and cannot legitimately form the basis for value enhancement; also relied on authorities requiring authentication for foreign documentary evidence and cautioning against reliance on unsigned/unattested tabulations. Interpretation and reasoning: The pro forma invoices before the investigation concerned sales between Indonesian seller and Hong Kong buyer (different parties, trade route and market), lacked specification that goods were identical or contemporaneous, and displayed price variability across carpet types. The Department did not apply any pro forma rate systematically but arbitrarily adopted USD 3/sq.m to quantify demand. The alleged communication from Indonesian/Chinese customs lacked bill of lading/invoice references, particulars, or authentication; the Chinese tabulation was unsigned and unaccompanied by any covering letter from an authority. The Tribunal held such material non-comparable, unauthenticated and thus inadmissible for revaluation purposes. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - pro forma invoices and unsigned foreign tabulations, without authentication and comparability, cannot be relied upon to reject transaction value; arbitrary selection of non-comparable rates is impermissible. Obiter - remarks on market differences between India-Indonesia and Indonesia-Hong Kong transactions and on price variability among carpet types. Conclusions: Pro forma invoices and the foreign customs tabulations lacked requisite comparability and authentication; they could not corroborate undervaluation or justify re-determination of transaction value. Issue 4 - Use of contemporaneous imports/bills of entry of other importers Legal framework: Rejection of transaction value requires cogent and comparable contemporaneous import evidence; Department must disclose relevant bills of entry and demonstrate comparability in description, quantity and period. Precedent treatment: Tribunal applied settled authorities holding that contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods are essential for rejection and that department cannot rely on undisclosed or non-comparable bills. Interpretation and reasoning: Several bills of entry relied upon by adjudicating authority were not produced or shown to be comparable; absence of copies and absence of findings on comparability prevented the Tribunal from accepting them as basis for enhancement. Tribunal noted the adjudicating authority did not address contemporaneous imports placed on record by the importer showing similar or lower values. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - undisclosed or non-comparable contemporaneous imports cannot justify rejection of declared transaction value. Obiter - emphasis on departmental duty to disclose evidentiary material. Conclusions: Departmental reliance on unproduced/uncorroborated contemporaneous import data was unsustainable; declared transaction value must be accepted. Issue 5 - Classification of multi-media speakers Legal framework: Tariff classification is a question of legal interpretation of tariff headings and application to product features; Tribunal authority and consistent jurisprudence on identical products are relevant precedents to determine classification. Precedent treatment: Tribunal noted a line of prior decisions (including earlier decisions of the same Bench/Tribunal) holding multi-media speakers with ancillary features (USB/SD/FM/AUX/Bluetooth etc.) to fall under Chapter Head 8518 rather than 8527/8519 and that MRP-based CVD did not apply under 8518. Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the established catena of decisions, the speakers with optional ancillary features were correctly classifiable under CTH 8518; the Department's reclassification to attract MRP-based levy was contrary to settled Tribunal jurisprudence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - multi-media speakers as described are classifiable under CTH 8518 and not liable to MRP-based CVD; following binding/precedential Tribunal decisions. Obiter - discussion of optional nature of features and the non-applicability of MRP valuation in such headings. Conclusions: Reclassification to CTH 85279100/8519 and consequent demands on speakers were unsustainable and set aside. Issue 6 - Confiscation, extended period, redemption fine and penalties Legal framework: Extended period and enhanced penalties require satisfaction of specific ingredients - suppression/fraud or willful misstatement and failure to disclose material facts; confiscation/redemption and penalties follow only where misdeclaration/undervaluation and requisite mens rea are established. Precedent treatment: Tribunal applied principle that penalties and extended limitation cannot be invoked absent proven suppression or fraud; penalties under Sections 112/114A are correlative to grounds for extended limitation. Interpretation and reasoning: Since Tribunal found that undervaluation and misclassification findings were unsustainable (transaction value accepted; speakers correctly classed), the foundational facts required for invocation of extended period, confiscation and penalties were absent. Also, where the director against whom penalty proceedings existed had died, the appeal abated. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absent proved suppression/intent and where primary duty demands fail, confiscation, redemption fines, extended limitation and penalties cannot be sustained. Obiter - procedural note on abatement on death of person penalized. Conclusions: Confiscation, redemption fine, extended period invocation and penalties set aside; appeal allowed with consequential relief and related penalty appeal abated on death.