9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Confiscation of imported batteries due to misdeclaration of rechargeable status and undervaluation.
Confiscation due to Misdeclaration: The appeal was against the confiscation of a consignment of batteries imported by the appellant, where the goods were declared as "not rechargeable" but were found to be rechargeable upon examination. The appellant's explanation that the clearing clerk mistakenly added the description "Not rechargeable" was rejected by the authorities. The lower authorities held that the description and value of the goods had been misdeclared. The Additional Commissioner revalued the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 90,000, and a penalty of Rs. 15,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no merit in the appellant's case. The Tribunal, after perusing the records and hearing both sides, upheld the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer is responsible for the particulars declared in the bill of entry. The documents produced by the appellant were deemed vague and lacking essential particulars for valuation. The Customs authorities were justified in rejecting the declared value and reassessing the goods based on their own pricing, leading to the confiscation of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the misdeclaration of both price and description warranted the confiscation, and thus, the appeal was dismissed. Undervaluation of Goods: The Customs authorities noted discrepancies in the declared values of the batteries compared to the floor prices and approved valuations. The appellant's invoice from Busino Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong, did not specify whether the batteries were rechargeable or not, only describing them as "Hi-watt Brand Ni-CD Battery." The declared prices were considered false and too low by the Customs authorities. The approved valuation for the batteries was significantly higher than the declared value, leading to the initiation of confiscation and other proceedings. The Tribunal supported the Customs authorities' decision to reject the declared value and revalue the goods based on their own assessment, emphasizing the lack of essential particulars in the invoice for proper valuation. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction lacked transparency and confidence, with the documents produced by the appellant facilitating misdeclaration and undervaluation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the revaluation of the goods by the authorities and the imposition of fines and penalties, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
|
