2008 (10) TMI 416 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, assessment of goods value, imposition of fine and penalty

Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported goods declared as "Electrolytic Tin Plate Prime Sheets" but were found to be secondary tin plate sheets upon examination. The secondary tin plate sheets had discrepancies such as non-uniform coating, mixed gauges, and sub-standard quality. The misdeclaration attracted a higher duty rate of 20% BCD compared to the lower duty rate of 5% for prime sheets. The appellant claimed to have negotiated a reduced price with the supplier after discrepancies were noticed, but the Commissioner held the original declared value of US $ 655 PMT. The misdeclaration was deemed a deliberate violation of Section 46(1) with the intention to evade customs duty.

Assessment of Goods Value:
The appellant argued that they ordered only prime quality goods based on documents received from the supplier and sought leniency due to the reduction in price to US $ 455 PMT. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim of reduced price acceptance as there were imports of prime sheets at a higher price of US $ 1030 PMT. The Tribunal found the misdeclaration to be a deliberate ploy to import high-rated items as low-rated items, justifying the confiscation of goods valued at Rs.29,68,861.50 and imposition of a penalty of Rs.1.50 lakhs.

Imposition of Fine and Penalty:
The appellant sought leniency in imposing fines and penalties, arguing that the misdeclaration was not deliberate and that the violation of the prescribed port of import should not be viewed seriously. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine, considering the intention to evade customs duty and the violation of import restrictions. The Tribunal concluded that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were justified based on the value of the goods and the duty sought to be evaded.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appeal and affirming the confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine. The misdeclaration of imported goods, assessment of goods value, and imposition of fines and penalties were thoroughly analyzed, leading to the decision in favor of the Respondent.