The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has substantially overturned a customs duty demand raised against Jaipur-based importer HMD Exim Pvt. Ltd., holding that customs authorities cannot re-determine import values using arbitrary methods or generalized assumptions of undervaluation. 

The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Member Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member Technical) partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the bulk of the duty demand and the entire penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. 

The bench upheld only a limited demand of ₹1,20,745 along with applicable interest, while quashing the remaining customs, CVD and anti-dumping duty demands exceeding ₹2.24 crore. 

The case originated from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into imports of watch parts, watch movements, dials, straps and related components imported from Hong Kong by HMD Exim Pvt. Ltd. Customs authorities alleged large-scale undervaluation of imported goods and claimed that the importer was purchasing goods through related overseas entities while declaring artificially depressed values before Indian Customs. 

Based on these allegations, the Commissioner of Customs had rejected the declared transaction values, re-determined the assessable value of imports, and confirmed anti-dumping duty of ₹88.78 lakh, countervailing Duty (CVD) of ₹25.34 lakh, customs duty of ₹1.10 crore, and penalty of ₹2.24 crore on the importer

The department also alleged that overseas supplier entities in Hong Kong were effectively controlled by the same family that controlled the importing companies in India. 

The Tribunal agreed with the department on one crucial point: Customs authorities were justified in doubting the declared transaction values.

The Bench noted that evidence on record suggested substantial links between the Indian importing entities and the Hong Kong suppliers. Since the buyers and sellers appeared to be related entities, Customs was justified in invoking Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules and rejecting the declared transaction values. 

According to the Tribunal, the existence of common ownership and control was sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the truth and accuracy of the declared values, even without conclusive proof that additional amounts were paid in cash overseas. 

While upholding rejection of the declared value, the Tribunal found serious legal defects in the manner in which Customs re-determined the assessable value.

The Bench emphasized that once transaction value is rejected, valuation must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the sequential methods prescribed under the Customs Valuation Rules.

The Commissioner had stated that values were re-determined under multiple valuation rules simultaneously. However, the Tribunal observed that the law requires authorities to move sequentially through the valuation hierarchy and explain which rule was applied to which category of goods and why. 

The order failed to specify: Which valuation rule was applied to particular imports; Why earlier valuation methods were discarded; and How specific revised values were calculated.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that most of the valuation exercise could not withstand judicial scrutiny. 

One of the most significant findings in the judgment concerns the department’s reliance on an alleged average undervaluation rate of 60% for several categories of imported goods.

The Tribunal categorically ruled that such an approach has no sanction under customs valuation law.

For products such as: Watch dials, Metal straps and bands, Watch hands, O-rings, and Miscellaneous watch components, the authorities had loaded values based on assumptions and average percentages of undervaluation. The Tribunal held that such methods amounted to the use of arbitrary and fictional values expressly prohibited under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. 

The Bench observed that valuation cannot be based merely on generalized findings of under-invoicing without following the prescribed statutory methods. 

The Tribunal was particularly critical of the valuation methodology adopted for imported watch dials.

The Commissioner had claimed that no contemporaneous imports or sales of identical or similar watch dials existed, thereby justifying resort to the residual valuation method under Rule 8.

CESTAT found this reasoning implausible.

The Bench remarked that watch dials are common commercial goods and it was difficult to accept that no comparable imports or domestic sales existed during the relevant period in a market as large as India. The Tribunal noted that the very evidence relied upon by Customs demonstrated the existence of comparable imports and market transactions. 

Consequently, valuation under the residual method was held to be legally unsustainable. 

The Tribunal upheld valuation re-determination only for certain goods such as: Leaded brass strips, Polishing powder, Acrylic lacquers, PVA wheels, Grinding wheels, Black cloth, Index-fixing glue, Dial colour solution, and UV glue. For these products, the revised values were based on actual invoices recovered during the investigation and therefore satisfied legal requirements. 

Accordingly, only a limited duty demand of ₹1,20,745 together with applicable interest survived. All remaining demands were set aside. 

The Tribunal also struck down the entire penalty imposed on HMD Exim Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner had imposed a combined penalty under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act. CESTAT held that such a composite penalty is legally impermissible because the two provisions operate independently and, in certain situations, are mutually exclusive. 

The Bench further noted that the adjudication order failed to clearly specify the exact statutory provision under which the penalty was being imposed.

Holding the penalty order to be vague and contrary to law, the Tribunal set it aside in its entirety.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Supreme Court Upholds Rs. 82 Lakh Compensation for CA Final Student Killed in Road Accident