2010 (1) TMI 946 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - penalty - passenger declared Nil declaration for value of dutiable goods before the Customs authorities. His baggage was then examined and 290 sets of MP-4 players without any brand markings were recovered - applicant submitted that being not conversant with Customs Act carried the said goods as baggage with him instead of sending through cargo on the belief that like Railways goods can be carried and further duty were leviable in goods imported in person Held that - omission/commission has been done intentionally to avoid payment of Custom duty and to earn huge profits feels that valuation as done by the lower authorities is just and proper plea of the applicant on the quantum of fine and penalty has no merit as the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed by Adjudicating authority cannot be considered harsh as it is even less than 20% and 10% of the value respectively. Therefore Government upholds the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal with slight modifications in order-in-appeal revision application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Valuation of impugned goods for customs duty.
3. Allegations of smuggling and illegal sale of goods.
4. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Analysis:
1. The applicant contested the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's grounds included lack of familiarity with the Act, denial of passing through the green channel without declaration, and disputing the valuation of the seized goods. The jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Customs had ordered for confiscation of the goods under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a redemption fine and penalty. The applicant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the revision application.

2. The valuation of the impugned goods was a crucial aspect of the case. The applicant argued that the value taken was exorbitant and requested a market inquiry for correct valuation. However, the government, after considering the Customs Valuation Rules, found that the residual method under Rule 8 was appropriate due to the absence of supporting evidence or standard price bands. The government rejected the plea for valuation under Rule 4(3) and upheld the valuation done by the lower authorities.

3. Allegations of smuggling and illegal sale of goods were refuted by the applicant, emphasizing that the goods were freely available in the market and not smuggled. The applicant highlighted errors in referencing certain websites and the incorrect application of Customs Valuation Rules. However, the government found no merit in these arguments and upheld the confiscation of the goods based on the valuation and circumstances of the case.

4. The imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty was also challenged by the applicant, citing unintentional lapse and requesting a reduction or setting aside of the penalties. The government, after evaluating the circumstances, found the penalties imposed to be reasonable and not harsh. The government upheld the impugned orders with slight modifications, dismissing the revision application for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the government rejected the revision application, upholding the confiscation of goods, valuation methodology, and imposition of fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.