1983 (11) TMI 277 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Under-valuation of imported goods.
2. Contravention of Import Trade Control (ITC) Regulations.
3. Classification of imported goods as 'Consumer goods' or 'Raw materials'.
4. Confiscation and redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Under-valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants were found guilty of under-valuing a consignment of Audio/Video Tapes, with the declared value being significantly lower than the appraised value by the Custom House. The appellants argued that the goods were shipped directly from Japan, which should cost less than goods shipped via a third country like Hong Kong. They also contended that the quantities imported were materially different, which should affect the price, and that a time lag existed between the imports, impacting the prices. The department relied on various documents and letters to support their claim of under-valuation, but the tribunal found these documents insufficient to substantiate the charge. The tribunal directed that the goods be re-assessed to duty based on the value declared by the appellants.

2. Contravention of ITC Regulations:
The Additional Collector held that the goods were not covered by the ITC Licence and were ineligible for release under the AM 1982 Policy. The appellants argued that the goods should be considered as 'raw materials' used in the manufacture of video tape recorders. However, the tribunal found that the blank video tapes were 'consumer goods' and not 'raw materials'. The definition of 'raw material' and 'consumer goods' from standard dictionaries supported this view. The tribunal upheld the charge of mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and justified the confiscation of the goods.

3. Classification of Imported Goods:
The tribunal examined whether the blank video tapes could be considered 'raw materials' or 'consumer goods'. It was concluded that blank video tapes are finished products that can be sold directly to consumers and do not qualify as 'raw materials'. The tribunal noted that even if these tapes were imported by a manufacturer of video cassette recorders, they would still be treated as finished components. The tribunal agreed with the Additional Collector's classification of the tapes as 'consumer goods'.

4. Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The Additional Collector had confiscated the goods but allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 70,000/-. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the Additional Collector had already taken a lenient view in fixing the redemption fine. The tribunal did not see any reason to provide further relief to the appellants regarding the fine.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing that the goods be assessed based on the declared value for duty purposes, but upheld the confiscation of the goods for contravention of ITC Regulations and maintained the redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/-.