2017 (2) TMI 1262 - AT - Customs

Valuation - mis-declaration of value - baggage rules - confiscation - penalty - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that there is misdeclaration of the value of Palladium plates and Iridium powder, accordingly the consignments are held as liable for confiscation. Since a question is raised by the learned Counsel that the goods were imported as baggage confiscation seems to incorrect, the appellant herein did not make the declaration of the contents of baggage and was diverted from Green Channel to the Red Channel and consignment of Palladium plates and Iridium powder was detected; as there was wrong declaration of value of consignment and the impugned order is correctly held as liable for confiscation - the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 will be attracted - the quantum of penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) & (l) of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Goods:
The appeal involved a case where the adjudicating authority had held 5.7 kgs of Palladium Plates and 6 kgs of Iridium Powder liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) & (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to misdeclaration of their value. The appellant did not declare the contents of the baggage accurately, leading to the detection of the Palladium plates and Iridium powder during inspection. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but found the redemption fine of &8377; 7,00,000 to be excessive given the consignment's value of &8377; 24,00,000. Accordingly, the redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 3,00,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 7,00,000 in lieu of confiscation of the goods. However, the Tribunal deemed this amount excessive relative to the consignment's value and reduced it to &8377; 3,00,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision to reduce the redemption fine was based on the principle of ensuring justice and proportionality in penalties imposed in such cases.

Penalty Imposed:
Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal found the penalty of &8377; 3,00,000 to be excessive considering the value of the consignment. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to &8377; 1,00,000 from the original amount. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty on the appellant but emphasized the need for proportionality in penalties based on the circumstances of the case. The appeal was disposed of with the modifications in the redemption fine and penalty amounts as indicated in the judgment.