2009 (1) TMI 611 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of the year of manufacture of imported looms.
2. Valuation of imported looms and Jacquard machines.
3. Confiscation and imposition of penalties.

Summary:

1. Mis-declaration of the Year of Manufacture of Imported Looms:
The applicant company imported power looms and declared the year of manufacture as 1993. However, forensic examination revealed tampered plates and accessories indicating manufacture years of 1988-1990. The Commissioner concluded that the looms were mis-declared as 1993 make, violating licensing regulations for importing machinery over ten years old without the required license. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting the lack of valid explanation for the tampered plates and the absence of any request for further examination of the remaining looms.

2. Valuation of Imported Looms and Jacquard Machines:
The company declared the value of the looms at $29,500 per unit, including accessories. The department did not allege any excess payment beyond the invoice amount. The Tribunal found the declared value reasonable and noted that the price was above contemporaneous imports of similar looms. The Jacquard machines, being new, were to be assessed separately at $5800 per unit, with the overall consignment value adjusted accordingly. The Tribunal disagreed with the finding that Jacquard machines were imported without declaration, as the invoices and packing lists indicated their inclusion.

3. Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the looms and Jacquard machines, imposing fines and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the looms but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000. The confiscation and fine on the Jacquard machines were set aside. The penalties on the company were reduced from Rs. 10,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, and penalties on the Director and Manager were set aside due to lack of evidence of their direct involvement in the mis-declaration.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the company was partly allowed, reducing fines and penalties, while the appeals of the Director and Manager were fully allowed with consequential relief.