2011 (9) TMI 786 - AT - Customs

Assessable value - Because of the mis-declaration the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000 - The main grounds for Appeal is that the value of tin plates of secondary quality was only 465 PMT at that time - the entire sequence of events shows that the goods were described in the invoices as prime grade only to get concessional rate of duty and therefore the personal penalty imposed is justifiable - Held that the goods were assessed on the basis of transaction value declared by the importer. Amendments in documents filed with customs are to be allowed in the discretion of the proper officer subject to his satisfaction that the amendment is for bona fide reasons - Held that the gain that the importer was planning to make stands negated substantially due to payment of duty at higher rate of duty on higher value and there is a case for reduction in the redemption fine and penalty - Appeal is partly allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods as prime grade.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act.
3. Imposition of fine and penalty.
4. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeal) decision.
5. Adjustment in assessable value of goods.
6. Justifiability of penalty imposed.
7. Reduction in redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant imported goods declared as "Prime Tin Plate Sheets" but upon examination, they were found to be of second grade. The Customs duty rate applicable for prime quality tin plate was 5%, while for second grade, it was 20%. Due to mis-declaration, the goods were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

2. The Appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeal) arguing that since the goods were of second grade, the value declared should have been adjusted. They claimed the supplier had dispatched the wrong quality goods and agreed to issue a credit note. The Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal, leading the Appellant to file an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal.

3. The main ground for appeal was that the value of secondary quality tin plates was lower at $465 PMT during the relevant period. The Appellant argued that they should not be penalized for the supplier's mistake and highlighted that they had paid duty at a higher rate and value. They also presented evidence of recovering only Rs. 20.46 lakhs as the sale price of the goods.

4. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the declared transaction value cannot be reduced and questioned the Appellant's intention to produce a credit note. The DR justified the redemption fine imposed as reasonable and argued that mis-declaration was done to obtain a lower customs duty rate.

5. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for a reduction in the assessable value, stating that amendments in documents must be for bona fide reasons, which were not evident in this case. It also dismissed the argument that the mis-declaration was due to the supplier's mistake, emphasizing that it was done to claim lower customs duty benefits.

6. While acknowledging that the Appellant's gain was substantially negated by paying duty at a higher rate, the Tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 75,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-, considering the circumstances.

7. The appeal was allowed partially, with the Tribunal pronouncing the decision in open court.