Latest Customs Law Updates & Duty Refund Judgments

Share:-

Content

Order date – 12 April 2023

Parties – Principal Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate Vs M/s Rajesh Plastics

Facts –

The respondent, M/S RAJESH PLASTICS, imported goods declared as modified Tapioca Starch valued at U.S. $ 200 per M.T. and filed the bill of entry dated 09.09.2013.
A subsequent examination and testing revealed that the imported goods were in fact Tapioca Starch, and not modified Tapioca Starch. The differential duty was paid by the respondent, and a show cause notice was issued covering past bills of entry under which the respondent had imported goods described as modified Tapioca Starch.
The Original Authority found that there was not sufficient material on record to reject the value declared by the respondent and re-determine the value as per Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules and accordingly dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.
The Revenue argues that the importer mis-declared the import value of the imported goods willfully with the sole intent to evade duty, and the differential duty proposed as per the SCN for the past import needs to be recovered with applicable interest and penalty.

Issue –

Whether the importer mis-declared the import value of the imported goods willfully with the sole intent to evade duty?

Order –

The SCN was issued invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging willful mis-statement of value by the respondent, without any allegation of collusion or suppression of facts.
The summary of the respondent's statements does not establish any mis-declaration of value, and there was no chemical analysis report or sample drawn to support the allegation.
Therefore, there is no evidence to confirm the demand as proposed in the SCN, and the Joint Commissioner was correct in dropping the SCN, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs by the respondent during the investigation cannot be considered as evidence of the Department's case, and the amount should be refunded to the respondent.
Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld, and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed with consequential benefits, if any, to the respondent.