2014 (10) TMI 843 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of value of diamond Vide impugned order consignment of 299.33 carats of cut and polished diamonds imported by appellant was confiscated and allowed to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 Appellants have appealed against confiscation and consequent redemption fine, on other hand Revenue appealed for imposition of penalty which was not imposed by adjudicating authority Held that - packets containing 299.33 carats were stated to have been exported consignment but actually consignment of 1098.80 carats was exported Therefore, claim of appellant that this consignment was re-imported without accompanying documents due to oversight is not plausible claim because only part of exported goods were brought back In view of these facts there is no doubt that there has been mis-declaration Diamonds being very sensitive commodity its trading of may not have duty implication but can have other implications of money transactions No reason to disagree with findings of Commissioner confiscating goods and imposition of redemption fine Decided against Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and redemption fine of imported diamonds.
2. Appeal against confiscation and imposition of penalty.
3. Misdeclaration under Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act.

Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original where a consignment of cut and polished diamonds was confiscated and allowed to be re-exported on payment of a redemption fine. The appellants contested the confiscation and redemption fine, while the Revenue appealed for the imposition of a penalty not imposed initially. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs, emphasizing the misdeclaration under the Customs Act due to discrepancies in the exported and re-imported quantities.

Misdeclaration and Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant exported and subsequently re-imported a consignment of diamonds, but discrepancies arose during re-import regarding unreported 299.33 carats of diamonds. The Tribunal noted that only a portion of the exported goods was re-imported, indicating misdeclaration under the Customs Act. Despite the appellant's claim of oversight, evidence showed awareness of the unreported diamonds. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(iii) of the Customs Act due to the lack of correlation between the exported and unreported imported quantities, emphasizing the need for accurate declarations in sensitive commodity trading.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate declarations under the Customs Act, emphasizing the repercussions of misdeclaration in trading sensitive commodities like diamonds. The judgment upheld the confiscation and redemption fine while imposing a penalty on the appellants for the unreported diamonds during re-import. The decision aimed to ensure compliance with customs regulations and prevent misdeclarations in international trade transactions.