9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Confiscation of goods, Penalty imposition, Revaluation of goods
In this case, the appellant, a manufacturer of woolen goods, imported a consignment declared as synthetic hosiery rags but found to contain used serviceable garments. The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as most goods conformed to the declaration, and any discrepancies were due to the supplier's oversight. The appellant contended that the fine and penalty imposed were excessive and that the increase in the value of the goods was unjustified since the serviceable pieces had been mutilated before delivery. The Revenue, on the other hand, justified the confiscation and revaluation based on the examination results showing the presence of serviceable garments. The Tribunal found that while confiscation was justified due to mis-declaration, the increase in valuation was unwarranted as the goods had been mutilated before importation, aligning with Section 24 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed and ordered that the offending goods be subjected to duty at the declared value rather than the enhanced value. The appellant was granted consequential relief in light of the modifications made to the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods for mis-declaration but reduced the fine and penalty while reverting the valuation of the goods to the declared value, providing relief to the appellant in this customs matter.
|
