Customs – Sections 14, 28, 111(m), 114AA, 125 and 139 of Customs Act, 1962 – Rules 3(4) and 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – Export declarations – Admissible evidence – Appellant imported unbranded Reflective Sheets from China vide Bills of Entry – On examination, officers found goods to be branded Reflective Sheets of brand name “Sablite” – Adjudicating authority rejected declared value under Rule 12 of the Rules and re-determine same under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 3(4) of the Act and confirmed demand of differential duty and also ordered for confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Act – Whether Export Declarations received from China are genuine documents to be admissible as evidence – HELD – Export declarations received from China contain data including Exporter name, Consignee name, Departure date, Transport mode, Destination country code, Container No., description of goods, Country of origin, Quantity, FOB Value, etc. – All these details, except a few particulars that too in few of these documents tally with invoices – Prima facie, these documents appear to be genuine – Admissibility of documents is covered under Section 139 of Act – Declarations obtained from China Customs are the documents in terms of Section 139(ii) of the Act – Appellant has failed to rebut presumption of correctness attached to these documents in terms of Section 139 of the Act – Export Declarations received from China are admissible as evidence – Appeal dismissed - Import of goods – Mis-declaration – Whether Appellant has mis-declared goods imported under Bills of Entry – HELD – Appellant declared goods as Reflective Sheets without specifying any brand, but on examination, they were found to be of “Sablite” brand – Brand name was suppressed with sole intention to lower the value of imported goods – Original value declared before Chinese Customs for goods was different than value in invoices presented before Indian Customs Authorities for same goods in same consignments – Appellant declared very less value of transaction in Bills of Entry as contrast to value as declared by exporter in his country for same invoice – Invoice has been manipulated in between export and import ports and invoice depicting less value was presented to Indian Customs in order to evade legitimate duty of customs – Chinese exporter has certified that Appellant is their Customer for years for reflective sheets under “Sablite” brand – Said document confirms alleged mis-declaration, as said brand has not been declared in Bill of Entry – Appellant had mis-declared goods while importing them - Undervaluation of imported goods – Demand of differential duty – Whether demand of differential duty, confiscation of goods imported under Bills of Entry and imposition of redemption fine and penalties can be sustained or not – HELD – In impugned order, Commissioner has rejected declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the rules and re-determined it based on actual transaction value and confirmed demand of differential duty of customs under Section 28 of the Act – Since there was mis-declaration of goods both in terms of value and quantity, demand of differential duty and order of confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act must be upheld – Redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Act is very fair and reasonable and calls for no interference – Appellant was liable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Act and penalty imposed was just and fair in factual matrix of this case.

Quick Search


Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page