9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of goods and value in customs clearance; Confiscation of consignment under Section 111(m); Assessment at a higher value; Imposition of penalty; Appeal against the adjudication order.
In this case, the appellant, an export house dealing in paper-based laminates, imported base paper and declared it as "stock lot" in the invoice. However, Customs Authorities determined the goods to be prime quality, leading to mis-declaration allegations and a value increase to .80 U.S. $ per kg. The consignment was confiscated under Section 111(m), and a penalty of Rs. 20,000 was imposed. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), arguing that the goods were indeed stock lot, supported by a Chartered Engineer's report and evidence of similar imports at the same price. The Commissioner upheld the adjudication order, prompting the appellant to challenge it in the present appeal. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the supplier had declared the paper as stock lot, even providing a letter explaining that it was part of the outstanding stock sold after the supplier's bankruptcy. The survey report corroborated this, indicating manufacturing dates from 2001. The Tribunal noted that the inspection post-clearance at the appellant's premises did not invalidate these facts. Importantly, other parties had imported similar goods at the same price, cleared at transaction value, strengthening the appellant's commercial basis argument. Consequently, the lower authorities erred in deeming the declaration incorrect, leading to the appeal's allowance and the impugned order's reversal. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief for the appellant. This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration in customs clearance, supported by documentary evidence and commercial comparables to establish the veracity of the transaction value and nature of the imported goods.
|
