2014 (12) TMI 1240 - AT - Customs

Smuggling of wrist watches micro SD cards button cell etc. - Mis-declaration of description and value - Rejection of declared value - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Appellant contended that post import was not covered under the section 111(l) & (m) of the Customs Act - Held that - a gross mis-declaration was found when goods were smuggled at foreign post office from kowloon Hongkong. Documents filed were not signed. Items declared were Wrist watches items actually found was Micro SD Cards Button Cell watches straps Sony Electric Part CCTV. Values were grossly under declared. All these goods were smuggled in the guise of postal import. It is settled law that fraud nullifier every things as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Canded Enterprises. No relief on technical ground could be claimed once smuggling has clearly been manifested and admitted. Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken liberal view and has reduced redemption fine and penalty. Therefore no interference in the order passed by Commissioner is warranted. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration and under-valuation of imported goods, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved intelligence about smuggling of items through EMS speed post parcel from Hong Kong to New Delhi by mis-declaring description and value. Upon examination, different items were found than declared, leading to seizure based on the belief of confiscation. The appellant did not respond to summons, but the importer admitted to the import. The value of seized goods was calculated at Rs. 5,91,250.

2. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value, re-determined it at Rs. 5,91,250, and allowed redemption of goods on payment of Rs. 3,00,000. Duty of Rs. 1,70,587 was confirmed, and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 was imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the seizure under section 110 of the Customs Act due to mis-declaration, justifying the redemption fine and penalty for smuggling. He disagreed with the argument that there was no entry under Section 82, but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2.75 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1.2 lakhs.

4. The appellant's counsel raised the issue that post import was not covered under section 111(l) & (m) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, emphasizing the gross mis-declaration and smuggling of various items. The Commissioner's liberal view in reducing the fine and penalty was acknowledged, citing the precedence that fraud nullifies technical grounds.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating no interference with the Commissioner's order was warranted, as the smuggling was evident and admitted. The decision was based on the established law that fraud overrides technicalities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.