2007 (3) TMI 545 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside Order-in-Original demanding differential duty and imposing penalty.
2. Allegation of mis-declaration of value of mobile phones.
3. Plea of typographical mistake in Bill of Entry leading to interchange of value and quantity.
4. Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) order by Revenue.
5. Examination of mistake in Bill of Entry by Commissioner (Appeals) and reliance on Tribunal ruling.
6. Revenue's grounds for appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.
7. Finding of mistake in Bill of Entry by Commissioner (Appeals) upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the Order-in-Original that demanded differential duty and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty on the Customs House Agent (CHA) from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000, which was not challenged by the Revenue. The allegation was related to the mis-declaration of the value of mobile phones, specifically model No. 8250, based on contemporaneous imports of the same goods.

2. The Respondent argued that a typographical mistake led to the interchange of value and quantity in the Bill of Entry for the model in question. They contended that the correct duty was paid based on the invoice value of $125 per mobile set. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this plea after noting that the mistake was clerical in nature and was made by the CHA, not the importer, citing a Tribunal ruling in a similar case.

3. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order on several grounds, arguing that the Order-in-Original was correct and that there was no clerical mistake in the Bill of Entry. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his findings regarding the quantity of goods and the responsibility for the mistake in the Bill of Entry.

4. The Appellate Tribunal carefully considered the matter and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings. They noted that the mistake in the Bill of Entry was clerical in nature and was rectified by the appellants themselves, with the CHA being responsible for the error, not the importer. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it, affirming the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.