2002 (5) TMI 722 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration of quantity and value of goods - Redemption fine and penalty - Misdeclaration of value

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Enhancement of the assessable value of the imported goods.
3. Imposition of fine and penalty on the appellant.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of the Imported Goods:
The Commissioner of Customs confiscated a consignment of Printed Flock Fabric imported by the appellant under Section 111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation was based on the finding that part of the dutiable goods had not been included in the bill of entry and that the goods did not correspond in respect of value with the entry made in the bill of entry. The appellant declared only 51,588.00 yards of fabric, valued at US $ 46,429.20, while the actual quantity was 95,655 yards, valued at US $ 86,089.50. The appellant argued that the discrepancy was due to an error by the foreign supplier, supported by a letter from the supplier. However, the Commissioner did not accept this explanation, leading to the confiscation and penalties.

2. Enhancement of the Assessable Value:
The Commissioner assessed the imported goods to customs duty based on the unit value of US $ 1.08 CIF per yard, as against the declared value of US $ 0.90 per yard. The appellant contended that the declared value was based on a long-term agreement with the supplier for 2nds, off shade, and short-lengths of Printed Flocking Fabric. The appellant argued that similar consignments had been accepted at the declared value by other customs authorities. However, the Commissioner found that the goods were not as described in the contract, with 91% of the fabrics being full length, justifying the higher assessable value.

3. Imposition of Fine and Penalty:
The Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant argued that the fine and penalty were excessive, considering the demurrage costs and the fact that only the undeclared portion of the goods should be considered offending. The Commissioner, however, treated the entire consignment as liable to confiscation and assessed it at the higher value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the mis-declaration would have caused a revenue loss of over Rs. 16 lakhs, justifying the fine and penalty imposed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The confiscation of the goods, enhancement of the assessable value, and imposition of fine and penalty were upheld. The appeal was accordingly rejected.