2008 (1) TMI 741 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - mutilation of goods - Held that - The Commissioner had refused mutilation of these goods into scrap as the request of the importer in this regard was made after the offence of mis-declaration was detected Therefore, the Commissioner rightly rejected the request of the importer to mutilate the mis-declared goods into scrap - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Confiscation of goods and containers, Assessable value determination, Redemption fines, Penalties

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The case involved appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding mis-declaration of imported goods as 'Light Melting Scrap'. The appellants had filed Bills of Entry for clearance of consignments declared as scrap, but upon examination, it was found that the consignments contained undeclared materials like galvanized sheets, tin sheets, coils, and engine parts. The Commissioner determined that these materials did not qualify as scrap and were mis-declared. The appellants argued that the materials were treated as scrap in the country of origin and offered to mutilate them. However, the Commissioner rejected this explanation and determined the assessable value of the goods based on contemporaneous imports.

Confiscation of Goods and Containers:
The Commissioner confiscated the mis-declared goods under various sections of the Customs Act, including Section 111, and also confiscated the containers used for transporting the goods. The appellants contested the confiscation of containers, citing a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal held that confiscation of containers as packaging was not sustainable and set it aside. The Tribunal also found that the fine and penalty imposed were excessive due to the Commissioner wrongly considering the liability of certain goods to confiscation under different sections. The fine and penalty were reduced accordingly.

Assessable Value Determination:
The Commissioner determined the assessable value of the mis-declared goods based on accepted transaction value of similar goods, rejecting the importer's request for mutilation after the mis-declaration was detected. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the assessable value, stating that once mis-declaration was established, the declared transaction value could not be accepted.

Redemption Fines and Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed redemption fines and penalties on the appellants, which the Tribunal found to be excessive considering the value of the goods and the incorrect consideration of confiscation liability. The Tribunal reduced the fines and penalties in both cases to more reasonable amounts, granting some leniency to the appellants. Overall, the Tribunal sustained the impugned orders with modifications in the fines and penalties, disposing of the appeals accordingly.