9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Original No. 18/95 on valuation and mis-declaration of goods, confiscation under Section 111(M) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Valuation of Goods: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner should have accepted the enhanced value of US $ 585/- PMT instead of US $ 468/- PMT as agreed upon by the importers. The grounds included mis-declaration of goods' description and value, invoking Section 111(M) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation due to mis-declaration. The Revenue argued that the goods should have been liable for confiscation under Section 111(M) due to the mis-declaration of value, which the Commissioner failed to act upon. The test report indicated that 56% of the goods were paper and paste boards, constituting a mis-declaration as per the Bill of Entry. The Revenue highlighted that 8 out of 34 samples were paper, not covered by the Advance Licence, and the Commissioner should have confiscated the goods for mis-declaration. Mis-declaration and Confiscation: The Revenue emphasized that the goods were mis-declared as "Assorted Colour Cardboard," whereas a significant portion was paper, not covered by the Advance Licence. They argued that the Commissioner should have invoked Section 111(M) for confiscation due to mis-declaration. The Revenue stressed that the Commissioner should have verified the Advance Licence before allowing clearances against it and should have confiscated the goods due to mis-declaration of description. The Revenue maintained that the Commissioner's failure to confiscate the goods based on mis-declaration was a legal oversight that should have led to confiscation under Section 111(M) of the Customs Act, 1962. Response and Clearance: The respondent-firm contended that there was no mis-declaration regarding the quantity and nature of the goods, as clarified in the findings. Although they initially agreed to an enhanced value of US $ 585/- PMT, they cleared the goods at US $ 468/- PMT based on the adjudicating authority's decision. The respondent produced the Licence subsequently for the 24% quantity of paper, not covered initially, and cleared the goods after paying the appropriate duty. They argued that since the goods were allowed to be cleared on the production of the Advance transferable licence, there was no basis for confiscation. The respondent maintained that the Commissioner's order was legal and proper, emphasizing that the goods were cleared on payment of duty without confiscation. Judgment: After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter back to the adjudicating authority solely for reevaluation of the goods' valuation, as requested by the Revenue. Regarding confiscation, the Tribunal noted that since the goods had already been cleared, there was no purpose in adjudicating confiscation post-clearance. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from providing an opinion on the confiscation issue and allowed the appeal by the Revenue for remand only on the valuation aspect, without addressing the confiscation matter further.
|
