2009 (12) TMI 800 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported goods were components of photocopying machines or complete photocopying machines in SKD/CKD condition.
2. The validity of the declared value and the demand for differential duty.
3. The confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act.
4. The imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the imported goods were components of photocopying machines or complete photocopying machines in SKD/CKD condition:
The appellant imported goods declared as components of photocopying machines under a license dated 14-7-1986. However, upon second-check examination by customs authorities on 10-8-1987, it was found that the consignment contained complete units of photocopying machines in CKD condition. This finding was confirmed in a subsequent re-examination on 10-11-1987. Despite the appellant's claim that some parts were indigenously procured, no documentary evidence was provided to support this. Three examination reports, including one dated 29-9-2008, consistently concluded that the consignment consisted of 20 complete units of photocopying machines. The Tribunal upheld these findings, noting that the appellant did not challenge the examination report of 2008 during the earlier proceedings.

2. The validity of the declared value and the demand for differential duty:
The customs authorities issued a show-cause notice proposing to reject the declared value and demand differential duty of over Rs. 20.9 lakhs. The Collector of Customs confirmed this demand, citing misdeclaration of the goods as components rather than complete machines. The Tribunal, upon re-examination of the consignment, found that the imported goods were indeed complete photocopying machines, thus justifying the rejection of the declared value and the demand for differential duty.

3. The confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act:
The Collector ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Tribunal upheld this order, noting that the goods were misdeclared and imported in violation of the import license. The examination reports consistently indicated that the consignment contained complete photocopying machines, justifying the confiscation.

4. The imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found this penalty to be disproportionately high and reduced it to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal also reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 13.9 lakhs to Rs. 5,00,000/-, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the examination reports and the appellant's admissions, concluded that the imported goods were complete photocopying machines in CKD condition. The declared value was rightly rejected, and the demand for differential duty was justified. The confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act was upheld, but the penalties imposed were reduced to more reasonable amounts. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications.

← Previous Next →