2006 (1) TMI 507 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the import of cosmetics material and the valuation of goods.
2. Confiscation of excess goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty on the appellant.
3. Contention of the appellant regarding the additional invoices submitted and lack of mala fide intent.
4. Revenue's argument about the discrepancy in declared value and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs' order concerning the import of cosmetics material valued at Rs. 38,58,715. The customs authority ordered a 100% examination of the consignment, leading to the discovery of goods valued at Rs. 23,29,771 in excess of the declared value. The adjudication authority confiscated the excess goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs along with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.

2. The appellant contended that the additional invoices were submitted promptly upon realization of the discrepancy between the goods received and the invoices. They argued that there was no mala fide intent to evade duty, as they requested an amendment in the Bill of Entry to rectify the situation. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision to support their case.

3. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant knowingly declared a lower value for the goods in the Bill of Entry, only producing additional invoices after the authorities ordered an examination. The Revenue contended that the appellant was aware of the discrepancy in the goods received and attempted to evade duty by undervaluing the goods.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellant initially declared the value of the goods at Rs. 38,58,715 with two invoices, later submitting four more invoices covering goods valued at Rs. 23,29,771. There was no communication from the exporter regarding any mistake in sending excess goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions of submitting additional invoices after the discrepancy was pointed out did not absolve them of liability. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the reliance on a previous Tribunal decision was not applicable as the percentage of excess goods differed significantly.

Overall, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the excess goods, the imposition of fines, and penalties on the appellant based on the discrepancies in the declared value and the actual value of the imported goods.