2006 (2) TMI 564 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, under-valuation, confiscation, redemption fine, appeal rejection

Mis-declaration of Goods and Under-valuation:
The case involved Appeal No. C/411/04-NB filed by M/s. Cymex Time Pvt. Ltd., regarding the misdeclaration of goods imported from Hong Kong. The goods, declared as cellular phone battery chargers, were found to contain mobile phones and watch modules upon examination. The appellant company's director admitted to mis-declaring the value and description of the goods, leading to undervaluation. The adjudicating authority determined the value of the goods based on contemporaneous imports and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the value declared on the parcel's label should be accepted, but the Revenue contended that the wrong declaration and under-valuation were evident. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision based on the director's admission and rejected the argument for considering subsequent imports by another entity.

Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The Customs authorities confiscated the goods under Sections 111(1) and 111(m) of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration and undervaluation. The appellant was given the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1,20,000. The Revenue supported the confiscation based on the director's admission and cited legal precedents where similar actions were upheld. The Tribunal noted the misdeclaration and under-valuation, concluding that the goods were rightfully liable for confiscation, and deemed the redemption fine reasonable.

Appeal Rejection:
The Tribunal rejected both appeals, emphasizing the director's admission of misdeclaration and under-valuation. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding the value declared on the parcel and subsequent imports by another party, the Tribunal upheld the decision based on the facts admitted by the appellant's director. The lack of evidence establishing the country of origin and the discrepancies in quantity imported further supported the rejection of the appeals.

In summary, the judgment addressed issues of misdeclaration, under-valuation, confiscation, redemption fine, and appeal rejection in the context of imported goods. The decision was based on the admitted facts, legal precedents, and the Customs Act provisions, ultimately upholding the confiscation and redemption fine while rejecting the appeals due to the established misdeclaration and under-valuation of the goods.