Kerala HC: Can’t Condone Delay in Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Scope of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters is Extremely Limited  ||  Bom. HC: Release of Film ‘Hamare Baarah’ Permitted After Agreement on Deletion of Certain Portions  ||  All. HC: Without Magistrate’s Permission, Investigation into Non-Cognizable Offence Illegal  ||  Himachal Pradesh High Court: Timeline Cannot be Imposed on Speakers to Decide Resignations of MLAs  ||  Ker. HC: In Quashing Proc. Courts to Look at All Circumstances to See if Case Initiated With Malice  ||  Kar. HC: Women Epicentres of Family Life, Deserve Preferential Treatment in Matters Relating to Bail  ||  Ker. HC: Order Holding Malabar Parota Similar to Bread and Exigible at 5% GST, Stayed  ||  Special Lok Adalat to be Organized by the Supreme Court from July 29  ||  Cal. HC: Bengal Govt. to Ensure Reservation in all Public Employment to Transgender Persons    

Aakash Enterprises V. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (07 Apr 2017)

Transaction value has to be admitted as assessable value unless proved to be incorrect

MANU/CE/0246/2017

Customs

Appellant imported various automobile parts under cover of Bill of Entry on declared value. Such goods were cleared from Customs after paying customs duty. Subsequently, Appellants premises were put to search along with his residential premises, two shops and godown and goods imported vide above Bill of Entry was put to seizure on doubt of under valuation. Some other goods lying in the premises were also seized. Thereafter, statements of partner of importer firm were recorded along with statement of other persons. During course of investigations, Appellant took categorical stand that, goods other than one imported vide Bill of Entry dated 29th August, 2013 are locally procured goods and as such cannot be put to seizure.

Transaction value declared by importer stand rejected by Commissioner on sole ground that, NIDB data for contemporaneous imports reflects higher value of identical goods. This fact shows that, there is no independent evidence with Revenue to first reject transaction value. It is well settled law that, transaction value has to be admitted as assessable value unless proved to be incorrect. For such purpose, proving value to be wrong declaration, independent evidence is required and mere reference to NIDB data is not sufficient. It is held by various Courts that, NIDB data cannot be made basis for enhancement of value. One such reference can be made to Tribunal's decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi vs. Anshikha Overseas as also to Tribunal's decision in case of Divine International vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. As such, enhancement of value is not justified.

As regards other goods seized from premises, Appellants, even during course of investigation itself, had taken a categorical stand that, said goods were purchased by him locally from various traders. On verification of sellers, address of shops etc. shown in sales challans, were found to be either false or non-existence. When Appellant was confronted with said fact, he clearly deposed that, goods were purchased by him from sales representative and sale was not directly from shops. Appellant has also produced sales tax challan along with sales bill on record. This fact established that goods stand purchased in India only.

As regards their foreign origin and smuggled character, even though said goods are considered to be imported goods, same are not notified in terms of provisions of Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. As such, burden to establish that, they are smuggled into India lies heavily on Revenue and is required to be discharged by production of sufficient evidence. In present case, there is no such evidence on record, though Commissioner has made reference to certain Bill of Entries, which according to learned DR covers the goods in question. Even if that be so, it is established that, goods were imported under said Bill of Entries and their value cannot be enhanced based upon NIDB data. As such, confiscation of said goods or enhancement of value of same is neither warranted nor justified.

Tribunal set aside enhancement of value and confiscation of goods. Imposition of penalty upon Appellant is not called for, same is also set aside.

Relevant : Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi vs. Anshikha Overseas, Divine International vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi: MANU/CE/0328/2016

Tags : GOODS   VALUATION   CONFISCATION   PENALTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved