2014 (7) TMI 1142 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of Goods Packing material or cable ties Assesse filed Bill of Entry declaring imported goods as packing materials On examination, it was found that imported goods were actually not packing materials, but Cable Ties , which attract Anti-Dumping Duty Show cause notice was issued for misdeclaration of goods, proposing confiscation and penalty Commissioner (Appeals) upheld charge of Anti-Dumping Duty however, set aside order of confiscation and imposition of penalty Held that - goods were imported from Taiwan, therefore, Anti-Dumping Duty is liable to be charged on said goods at rate of difference between landed value and reference of price Respondent ought to have declared imported goods as Cable Ties , inasmuch as goods, Cable Ties were specifically mentioned under Notification Evident from records that, at no material time, assessee had disclosed that imported goods were Cable Ties and therefore, no force in contention that there was no misdeclaration or suppression on their part Impugned order set aside Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the imported goods, declared as packing materials but found to be 'Cable Ties', attract Anti-Dumping Duty.
2. Whether there was misdeclaration or suppression by the importer to evade Anti-Dumping Duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute where the assessee declared imported goods as packing materials, but upon examination, they were identified as 'Cable Ties' subject to Anti-Dumping Duty. The Notification No. 118/2008-Cus., dated 31-10-2008 imposed Anti-Dumping Duty on 'Cable Ties' imported from Taiwan. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed 'Cable Ties' and should have been declared as such, especially after the duty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the charge of Anti-Dumping Duty, considering the specific mention of 'Cable Ties' in the notification and the failure of the importer to disclose the true nature of the goods during various stages of assessment.

Issue 2:
Regarding the allegation of misdeclaration or suppression by the importer, the Tribunal considered the argument that since the goods were used as packing materials, there was no misdeclaration. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the importer should have declared the goods as 'Cable Ties' as per the notification, which was in effect before the Bill of Entry was filed. The Tribunal found that there was no disclosure to the Customs Department about the true nature of the goods, leading to the conclusion that there was indeed misdeclaration to evade Anti-Dumping Duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and upheld the lower authority's decision, allowing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of accurately declaring imported goods to comply with duty obligations and avoid misdeclaration to evade duties.