In the case of Customs Valuation Dispute, the Appellant challenged the assessment and order of confiscation by the Adjudicating Authority in the matter of imported camera stabilizer devices. Despite the history of importing similar goods, CESTAT upheld the decision with penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. Let’s dive into the details of this legal battle.
Facts
- The appellant imported camera stabilizer devices under a Bill of Entry dated 16 February 2018.
- The goods were alleged to be grossly undervalued, leading to an assessment by the adjudicating authority at Rs. 66,18,575/-.
- An order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act was issued, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 9,93,000/.
- The appellant has a history of importing similar goods and claimed the value was in line with online trading websites.
- An appeal was filed before the CESTAT against the assessment and order of confiscation.
- The CESTAT passed a judgement on 29 September 2022, upholding the decision of the adjudicating authority.
- Penalties were imposed on the importer under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act.
Also Read: Interim Compensation Discretion: Appellant vs. Respondent
Arguments
- The appellant argued that the hardware and software for both Items were different.
- The review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners was considered time-barred as it was passed after more than 10 months from the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
- CESTAT was criticized for ignoring the definitions of ‘identical’ and ‘similar’ goods under the Valuation Rules.
- The appellant contested that the goods imported in the past were not similar or identical as claimed.
- Specifically regarding the Camera Stand (3-axis Stabilizer), it was argued that the item imported was different from the one described in the Bill of Entry dated November 13, 2017.
- The deemed error by CESTAT in overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) judgment was pointed out by the appellant.
- The manufacturer has described the goods subject matter of the impugned Bill of Entry as an unpopular brand.
- The adjudicating authority found that Item nos. 1 and 3 imported by the appellant were identical, and Item no. 2 was of similar goods.
- The goods in Item no. 3 were identical to the goods earlier imported.
- The finding of fact regarding the similarity of the goods has been reaffirmed by the CESTAT.
- Based on the above findings, no interference is required.
Also Read: Freedom of Speech and Expression in Criticism of Government Actions
Analysis
- Rules 3(1) and 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules mandate accepting the price actually paid for goods.
- No specific time period is prescribed for the Committee of Commissioners to exercise power under Section 129A.
- Section 129D also provides similar powers to the Committee of Commissioners.
- Section 14(1) discusses the ‘deemed value’ of goods.
- Assessing officer is expected to use the actual price paid as the assessable value of goods.
- Under Rule 4(2), transaction value can be discarded in certain cases like related buyers and sellers or imports of similar goods at higher prices.
- In extraordinary circumstances like during the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions were taken within a reasonable time by the Committee.
- An appeal was filed within the three-month limitation period as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 129A.
- Assessing officer must give reasons for rejecting transaction value and establishing an alternate assessable value.
- CESTAT’s decision was based on a detailed consideration of the material on record.
- Orders of this Court extended the period of limitation under statutes during certain periods.
- The issue of undervaluation was discussed in detail in the decision.
- Paragraph 10 of the decision mentioned the clarity of the law on undervaluation.
- The law was stated to be clear on the matter.
Also Read: Quashing of Complaint for Alleged Offenses in the Discharge of Official Duties
Case Title: M/S GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES AND RESEARCH Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI (IMPORT) (2024 INSC 204)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009385 / 2022
