9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as 'heavy melting scrap' to evade Customs duty. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Issue 1: Misdeclaration of imported goods as 'heavy melting scrap' to evade Customs duty. The appellant-company imported goods described as 'heavy melting scrap' in two bills of entry. Customs Authorities found brand new, rust-free, varnished, prime quality nails of steel in the containers instead of the declared scrap. Investigation included statements from company employees, market inquiries, and searches revealing the company's involvement in the sale of nails. The Commissioner of Customs concluded that the goods were misdeclared, making them liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant submitted a reply with a certificate supporting their claim, but the Commissioner upheld the misdeclaration, classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 7317.00 and imposing penalties. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner directed the classification of imported goods, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act, and imposed fines and penalties on the importer and the company's director for contravention. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, affirming the misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods but remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh determination of value, redemption fine, and penalties. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation order but required a reevaluation based on Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules. Issue 3: Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order. It upheld the findings of fact by the authorities below regarding misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods. The Court found sufficient material supporting the authorities' conclusions, including visual inspections, statements, market inquiries, and packaging details. The Court rejected the argument of lack of evidence supporting the findings and concluded that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law, thus dismissing it. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the misdeclaration of goods, confiscation under the Customs Act, and the appeal process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions involved in the case.
|
