2007 (1) TMI 479 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods as Mix Metal Scrap instead of Brass scrap, assessment of tariff value, intention to evade duty, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, misdeclaration of value, use of contemporaneous import for assessment.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, involved a Revenue appeal concerning the mis-declaration of imported goods. The core issue was the discrepancy between the declared goods as Mix Metal Scrap and the actual imported material, which was Brass scrap. The respondents faced a show cause notice for mis-declaration, as the value of Brass scrap was higher than the contemporaneous goods. The Revenue did not contest the entitlement of the respondents to import Brass scrap under the conditions of the 100% E.O.U. license. The contention was that the mis-declaration was unintentional due to a misunderstanding, as the respondents agreed to assess the goods at the tariff value set by the Government. The Tribunal held that there was no deliberate intention to evade duty, and mis-declaration was due to a misunderstanding. Since both Mix Metal scrap and Brass scrap were freely importable, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be justified. Regarding the value misdeclaration, the Tribunal emphasized that contemporaneous import data could only be used for assessment, not to establish misdeclaration without corroborative evidence. Without any specific charge of misdeclaration of value, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the mis-declaration of goods from Mix Metal Scrap to Brass scrap was not intentional but a result of misunderstanding. The assessment at the tariff value fixed by the Government indicated no intention to evade duty. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the Revenue's claims, and confiscation under Section 111(d) and misdeclaration of value were not substantiated. The use of contemporaneous import data for assessment purposes only was highlighted, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to establish misdeclaration of value.