Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Tata Mc Graw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. on 10 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(119)ELT546(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
K. Sreedharan, J. (President)
1. In this appeal the correctness of Order-in-Original No. VIII/AU/7/Misc./70/CH. 85/99, dated 31-5-1999 is in issue. It is related to an import of Computer Software. The value of Software was shown by the importer as US$ 90,000. That amount included application training of US$ 5,000, conversion amounting to another US$ 5000, application modification costing US$ 15,000 and post implementation expenditure of US$ 20,000 and travel and other expenses amounting to US$ 45,000. The actual value of the software has been found to be US$ 25,000. Since invoice mentioned US$ 90,000 as against the actual value US$ 25,000, adjudicating Authority namely the Commissioner of Customs directed the goods to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to the importer to redeem it on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order appeal is preferred.
2. In the case, where goods are imported into India, Customs Authorities are to find out the actual value of the goods imported and duty assessed accordingly. If value was not correctly shown, the Officers are to find out the actual value. Where the amount showed in the invoice is higher, they may bring it to the actual value or assessable value. In other words, if value shown in the invoice is seen to be excessive departmental authorities will have to assess the actual value and impose duty accordingly. In the instant case the Commissioner found that the value of the goods imported is far below the amount shown in the Invoice. Therefore, he arrived at the actual value of the imported goods. In such a situation, we fail to understand, how he confiscated the same on the ground of misdeclaration of value of goods. There was no attempt to evade payment of duty. Only as a result of the wrong conclusion that the importer misdeclared the value, the Commissioner fell into error of confiscating the goods giving option to the importer to redeem it with the option to pay redemption fine. According to us this procedure adopted by the Commissioner is clearly erroneous. Therefore, there was no justification for imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The entire amount which went into the cost of the Software has been given by the importer in the invoice. The same amount was also shown in the Bill of Entry. There was no suppression or concealment of any of the details. From those details given in the invoice and Bill of Entry Commissioner could have found out the actual value. The importer cannot under these circumstances be faulted for misdeclaration of the value.
3. In view what has been stated above, we quash the order of the Commissioner in its entirety with the consequential relief.