The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the burden of proving a charge of undervaluation lies upon the department.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the department has wrongly rejected the declared assessable value of the impugned import vide four Bill of Entries. The re-determined value is, therefore, not acceptable. The confirmation of the differential duty of Rs.9,60,376 is, therefore, liable to be set aside along with the order of confiscation and the order imposing various penalties.
The appellant/assessee is a partnership concern being engaged in import of “PVC Panels and Accessories‟ from China. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana got an intelligence about under valuation of imports.
The premises of appellant were searched under Panchnama proceedings dated 11.07.2019 during which several documents along with electronic devices were detained. The goods which were found in stock were the part of goods imported were seized.
The assessee contended that the demand has been confirmed merely on the basis of statement of the appellant without having any evidence to corroborate the said statement and to even support the re-determined value.
The department contended that they were undervaluing their imports to evade the Customs duty to remain competitive in the market. He while recording his statement dated 18.07.2019 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, had disclosed the actual transaction value of goods imported. He acknowledged that the appellant had willfully short paid the appropriate Customs duties by suppression of facts. Appellant failed to declare the actual prices before the Indian Customs at the time of filing Bill of Entries despite the same was in their knowledge.
The tribunal held that the statement of the proprietor which has been alleged to be under coercion, the sole evidence is held to have been wrongly relied upon by the department to reject the value of imported goods shown in the invoice attached to the Bill of Entry.
Case Details
Case Title: PVC Heights Company Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: Final Order No. 50057/2025
Date: 17/01/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Prem Ranjan Kumar
Counsel For Respondent: Manish Kumar Chawda
