2009 (2) TMI 688 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Determination of country of origin for imported goods, validity of documentary evidence, contradictory statements by the appellant, imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the goods were transshipped from Dubai and the recording of the origin as UAE in the Bill of Entry was a mistake. The lower appellate authority found that the correspondence to the companies involved was returned undelivered, indicating a fictitious nature. The authority also noted discrepancies in the appellant's statements regarding the origin of the goods and the evidence provided.

2. The lower appellate authority highlighted that the appellant's submission of the Bill of Entry showing UAE as the country of origin contradicted the actual Korean origin of the seized goods. The appellant's statements were found to be inconsistent, with no corroborative evidence supporting the claims made. The authority emphasized that the documents submitted were insufficient and appeared to be an afterthought to conceal the nature of the smuggled goods.

3. The lower appellate authority's decision was based on the unavailability of the suppliers, contradictory statements by the appellant, and incomplete documentation. The appellant's claim regarding the country of origin discrepancy was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence and the appellant's own contradictory statement. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate considering the value of the contraband goods.

4. The appellate tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that it was reasonable and did not require any intervention. The tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments and the insufficiency of evidence provided. The penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed adequate given the value of the smuggled goods.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision based on the contradictory statements, insufficient evidence, and discrepancies in the documentation provided by the appellant. The penalty imposed was considered appropriate, and the appeal was rejected.