Introduction:

In a recent case, the Supreme Court affirmed the provision of the Customs Act, allowing for the rejection of an Importer’s Bill of Entry for subsequent goods if undervalued compared to previously imported identical or similar goods. The case, involving M/s Global Technologies and Research and the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import), addressed allegations of undervaluation of imported camera stabilizer devices. The court’s decision, authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, upheld the findings of the Central Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Arguments:

The appellant/importer, represented by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, argued against the classification of the subsequent imported goods as identical or similar to the previously imported ones. The appellant contended that differences in hardware and software versions warranted separate treatment. Conversely, Mr. N. Venkatraman, representing the respondent, emphasized the factual findings and evidence supporting the identification of the goods as identical or similar.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, endorsing the CESTAT’s findings, determined the subsequent imported goods to be identical or similar to the earlier imports. The court dismissed the appellant’s contention regarding differences in hardware and software, citing detailed factual findings. Relying on the Customs Act provision and the case of Sanjivani Non-ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd., the court upheld penalties and differential customs duty recovery imposed by the Adjudicating authority.