Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2860
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M/S GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES AND RESEARCH – Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI (IMPORT) – Respondent
C.A. No.-009385 / 2022
The court upheld the CESTAT's decision on undervaluation, affirming that the transaction value can be rejected if identical or similar goods are found at higher prices, with no specific time limit for the Committee of Commissioners' review.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129(A) - Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Appeal against CESTAT order regarding undervaluation of imported goods - Appellant contested the valuation and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority - CESTAT restored the original order after finding goods identical/similar to previous imports - No specific time limit for Committee of Commissioners to exercise powers under Section 129A was found, and the delay was justified due to COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 10)
(B) Valuation of Goods - The transaction value declared in bills of entry can be rejected if identical or similar goods are found at higher prices - The assessing officer must provide reasons for rejecting the declared value. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant imported camera stabilizer devices, which were seized for alleged undervaluation. The adjudicating authority assessed a higher value and imposed penalties. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but CESTAT restored the original order.
Findings of Court:
The CESTAT's findings on the identity of goods were upheld, and the penalties imposed were deemed appropriate.
Issues: The main issues included the timeliness of the Committee of Commissioners' review and the correctness of the valuation of the imported goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CESTAT's findings were based on a detailed examination of the evidence, and the delay in the Committee's review was reasonable given the pandemic context.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellant assessee has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 29th September 2022 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the CESTAT’) in an appeal preferred under Section 129 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act). We must refer to a few factual aspects. The appellant assessee has been a regular importer of camera stabilizer devices for the last several years.
The appellant assessee imported a consignment of camera stabilizer devices under a Bill of Entry dated 16th February 2018. The consignment was covered under the Invoice dated 30th January 2018, having a total value of USD 20,353 (CF). The invoice was issued by Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.03.15 16:34:53 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified M/s.Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co. Ltd. in China.
2. Out of the 4 different categories of goods, the dispute is about 3 categories, the description of which is as under:
- 3. On the basis of the Intelligence, the goods were examined 100% by SIIB officers. It was alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued.
| Item Sr. No. | Description of Goods | Custo ms Tariff Head | Qty. in PCS | Unit price in USD | Assessabl e Value (in INR) | Customs Duty (in INR) |
| 1. | Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand) | 9620 0000 | 180 | 55 | 777640.67 | 240913.10 |
| 2. | Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA01, Unpopular Brand) | 9620 0000 | 110 | 45 | 388820.34 | 120456.50 |
| 3. | Dual Handle (Unpopular Brand, Parts of Camera Stand) | 8529 9090 | 50 | 10 | 39274.78 | 12167.30 |
| Item Sr. No. | Description of Goods | Custo ms Tariff Head | Qty. in PCS | Unit price in USD | Assessabl e Value (in INR) | Customs Duty (in INR) |
| 1. | Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand) | 9620 0000 | 180 | 55 | 777640.67 | 240913.10 |
| 2. | Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA01, Unpopular Brand) | 9620 0000 | 110 | 45 | 388820.34 | 120456.50 |
| 3. | Dual Handle (Unpopular Brand, Parts of Camera Stand) | 8529 9090 | 50 | 10 | 39274.78 | 12167.30 |
- After taking representative samples, the goods were detained for further investigation.
- On 21st February 2018, the goods were seized on the ground that the same were found to be mis-declared and undervalued. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the respondent and the customs broker were recorded on 23rd February 2018. The appellant's past import details were retrieved from the system, and it was found that the importer had imported identical/similar items with the same model numbers at higher and different unit prices. The appellant submitted a letter dated 7th March 2018 to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi, stating that the goods were imported from the manufacturer supported by the manufacturer’s invoice and that the value of the goods was listed on some of the well-known online trading and B2B websites. The appellant relied upon the letter dated 16th January 2018 from the manufacturer stating that the goods were of a lower version. The Department claims to have conducted a market survey on 26th March 2018.
4. The order-in-original dated 31st March 2018 was passed by the adjudicating authority rejecting the declared assessable value of Rs.12,87,742/- for the goods imported under Bill of Entry dated 16th February 2018 in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Valuation Rules’) read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority assessed the value of the imported goods at Rs.66,18,575/-. The adjudicating authority ordered recovery of differential customs duty of Rs.16,22,228/-. An order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act was passed, giving the appellant an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.9,93,000/. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,31,000/- on the importer under Sections 112(a) and 114AA respectively of the Customs Act. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The C
