2001 (12) TMI 742 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, confiscation, penalty, valuation of goods

Misdeclaration of goods:
The case involved the import of direct/indirect photo stencil film instead of masking film as declared in the Bill of Entry. The Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of a penalty. The appellant argued that the discrepancy was due to a mix-up by the supplier's shipping staff and that they had declared the goods based on the invoice received. The appellant contended that there was no significant benefit to be gained from misdeclaration, as the duty rates differed slightly, and both types of goods were under Open General Licence for import. The defense emphasized that the difference in duty was minimal, indicating that the misdeclaration was unintentional. The Tribunal considered the small quantity and value of the goods, along with the fact that duty had already been paid at a higher rate, leading to the conclusion that deliberate misdeclaration was not established.

Confiscation and penalty:
The learned SDR argued that misdeclaration was evident, justifying the confiscation and penal proceedings. However, the Tribunal found that penal action was not warranted in this case due to the small quantity and value of the goods, the minimal difference in duty even at a higher valuation, and the availability of both types of goods for import. As a result, the appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the confiscation and penalty.

Valuation of goods:
Regarding the valuation of the goods, the appellant had imported similar goods at different rates in the past. The Tribunal decided to revalue the goods based on the previous import at a lower rate of US $1.95 per meter, considering that the present import was comparable to the earlier import in terms of the type of goods and packaging. The assessment of the imported goods was finalized at the lower value, and any excess duty or penalty paid was ordered to be returned to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation and penalty while adjusting the valuation of the goods based on previous imports.