By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 31, 2018: THE appellant had imported Wooden Furniture [King size bed, Sofa set, Dresser, Wardrobe etc.] declaring the assessable value of the said goods as per the transaction price mentioned under the proforma invoice issued by the overseas supplier.

On examination of the consignment, it was noticed that the weight of the furniture declared in the respective Bills of Entry/Packing List is less in comparison to the actual weight of the said goods.

Alleging that the appellant had suppressed the value of the goods to the extent of the weight, less declared, differential duty on pro rata basis was confirmed and the goods were confiscated. Penalty was also imposed.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order and, therefore, the importer is before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that the price of the imported furniture was declared on unit wise basis and not against weight (of the furniture). Furthermore, furniture is classifiable under Chapter 9403 8900, where rate of duty is prescribed against units i.e. per piece/number and not according to the weight of the said furniture. And, therefore, loading the invoice price to the extent of excess weight on pro rata basis is untenable in law.

The AR supported the impugned order.

The Bench considered the submissions and observed -

"6. We find that undisputedly the appellant had imported wooden furniture of different varieties meant to be used in bedroom and hall etc. While importing the said goods, the appellant had declared the classification of the product, under Chapter 9403 8900 of CTA, 1975 which are assessable to duty as unit not by weight. Therefore, noticing excess weight at the time of physical verification of the import by the Customs authorities, in our view, could not in any manner change the transaction value disclosed in the proforma invoices, which has not been disputed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, loading the invoice price pro rata basis to the extent of excess weight of the furniture noticed during the physical examination, in our view, unsustainable in law for the reasons mentioned above…"

The order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2018-TIOL-3917-CESTAT-MUM)