9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods description, Misdeclaration of goods value, Confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of Customs Act, 1962, Reduction of fine and penalty, Valuation of goods.
In this case, the appellants imported goods described as Brass Scrap 'Honey' but were found to be Brass Scrap of Lady/Lace grade upon examination, requiring a specific import license. The goods were assessed to duty based on the declared value, which was proposed to be enhanced due to misdeclaration. The Commissioner of Customs held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine. Additionally, a personal penalty was imposed on the importer. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) due to non-production of the required import license but reduced the fine to Rs. 1 lakh considering the circumstances. Regarding the valuation aspect, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in adopting the value of brass scrap of label grade since the goods were not cuttings of new unleaded yellow brass as per the definition. The Tribunal set aside the enhancement of declared value and accepted the transaction value of US$ 885 PMT CIF, thereby overturning the confiscation under Section 111(m) for misdeclaration of value. The penalty on the importer was reduced to Rs. 10,000 as the misdeclaration charge was set aside, and only the ITC violation charge was upheld. The Tribunal referred to a previous order involving similar goods imported by the same appellant but distinguished the present case based on the definition of different grades provided by the Technical Information of the Bombay Metal Exchange Ltd. It was concluded that the goods in question matched the definition of brass scrap Lady/Lace grade, making the confiscation under Section 111(d) for ITC violation sustainable. The appeal was partly allowed, with the operative part pronounced in court.
|
