2001 (8) TMI 746 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of description and value in export documents under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme, confiscation of export consignment, imposition of penalty, challenge to adjudication order.

The judgment revolves around the mis-declaration of description and value in export documents filed under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme, leading to the confiscation of the entire export consignment and imposition of a penalty on the appellant. The Customs authorities alleged mis-declaration regarding items such as "Pressure Die Cast Component of Aluminium-Cylinder Aluminium" and "Non/Alloy Steel Forging," along with discrepancies in declared values. The appellant explained the discrepancies, stating that the items were commonly known as declared and the prices were justified based on manufacturing costs and efforts involved.

The appellant's explanation, provided in a letter dated 24-3-2001, regarding the composition and pricing of the exported items did not convince the Commissioner, who upheld the charges of misdeclaration and issued orders of confiscation and penalty. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the objections raised were peripheral and lacked substance. The appellant contended that the actions taken were unjustified, especially since objections were raised against only 5 out of 121 varieties of automobile parts in the consignment.

The appellant's legal counsel emphasized that the objections regarding mis-declaration of description and value were unfounded. They argued that the presence of iron sleeves inside aluminium cylinders did not change the nature of the product, and the declared values were based on commercial considerations and manufacturing intricacies. The appellant's counsel also highlighted that variations in prices are common and do not necessarily indicate mis-declaration, citing precedents to support their stance.

The Tribunal scrutinized the case and found that the objections raised by the Customs authorities were limited to a small portion of the consignment, rendering the confiscation of the entire consignment unjustified. The Tribunal further held that the objections regarding mis-declaration of description and value were not valid, as the appellant had adequately explained the composition and pricing of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs authorities should not interfere with commercial decisions and that variations in export prices do not automatically indicate mis-declaration.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's losses due to the delayed export process and granted permission for the export of the goods based on the previously filed export documents.