Order date: 29 September 2022

Facts: 

• The Respondent, M/S GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES & RESEARCH, imported a consignment of camera stabilizers through the Air Cargo Complex (Import) Delhi and filed Bill of Entry No. 5233199 dated 16.02.2018.
• The respondent had imported identical/similar goods at much higher prices. The matter was investigated further, statements were recorded and a Market survey was conducted.
• The respondent was that the Review of the impugned order in appeal by the Committee of Commissioners in terms of Section 129A (2) was time-barred and hence this appeal is not maintainable. It has been submitted that there was a gap of 10 months and 10 days between the date of the impugned order and the order of Review.
• Department rejected the importer’s assertion that they were unpopular brands or unpopular models or lower versions of the models was not substantiated by the evidence available on record. Therefore, it was contended that the imported goods were correctly confiscated under section 111 and consequently, the penalty was correctly imposed under Section 112 by the original authority.
• Aggrieved by the Order of Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed this appeal.

Issue:

• Is the review of the impugned order by the Committee of Commissioners under section 129A (2) time-barred as asserted by the respondent?
• Was the Commissioner (Appeals) correct in setting aside the rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determination of value under Rules 4& 5 by the original authority?

Order:

• The authorities in respect to the first issue, observed that section 129A deals with review of orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by a Committee of Commissioners or Principal Commissioners. No time limit for review is prescribed in this section. However, sub-section (3) of section 129A prescribes a time limit of 3 months from the date of communication of the impugned order for filing an appeal by either side. It may happen that the appeal is filed late with an application for condonation of delay and if the application is allowed, the appeal is admitted and decided on merits. Further, the entire period is covered by the various suo moto orders of the Supreme Court passed in view of the COVID pandemic. Therefore, this appeal should be treated as if it is filed without any delay.
• In respect to the second issue, it was observed that the goods which were indicated in the Bill of Entry were unpopular brands while what were imported were Zhiyun brand goods. The prices which were declared in the Bill of Entry were a fraction of the price of the Zhiyun brand goods imported by the same importer from the same overseas supplier and they were of the same models. This, this, constitutes a reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value.
• If the importer had declared the goods to be of Zhiyun brands earlier and in the disputed Bill of Entry described them as unpopular brands‘, there is no good reason as to why that brand has become unpopular‘ with time. The explanation of the importer was that it had imported unpopular models‘ of Zhiyun brand but had incorrectly declared them as unpopular brand‘. This explanation cannot be accepted for the reason that the model numbers of the goods imported in the disputed Bill of Entry dated 16.20.2018 and the model numbers of the goods imported earlier by the importer were the same as discussed in the order in original. 
• The authorities held that the imported goods were correctly confiscated under section 111 and consequently, the penalty was correctly imposed under Section 112 by the original authority. Since the importer had made false declarations in the Bill of Entry, the penalty was also correctly imposed under section 114AA by the original authority.
• The Authority allows the appeal of the Revenue, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) restore store the order of the original authority.