2013 (8) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods imposition of penalty and fine - Request was made by the appellant for allowing them to change the amount but the department made the order for confiscation of the goods - Held that - appellant themselves had informed the department vide their letter that value per piece in the Bill of Entry has been shown on the lower side by mistake liability were imposed upon the appellants but the amount of fine and penalty was reduced in the Bill of Entry value was not correctly declared by the importer attracting the violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act appeal decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect declaration of value in Bill of Entry.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported washing machines with correct retail sale price but incorrectly declared value in the Bill of Entry, leading to a shortfall in the assessable value and a resulting short levy. The appellant admitted the mistake in a letter to the department. The Tribunal found a violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act due to the incorrect declaration. Despite acknowledging the error, the Tribunal considered the circumstances and reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 12,000.

2. The original authority had ordered the confiscation of goods due to the incorrect declaration in the Bill of Entry, along with a redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 25,000. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal against this decision. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, further reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 12,000, granting relief to the appellant based on the overall view of the case.

3. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal, which reviewed the case and observed that the appellant had a valid argument for a reduction in the fine and penalty imposed. The Tribunal, taking into account the appellant's admission of the mistake and the corrective steps taken, decided to modify the redemption fine and penalty amounts, providing a more lenient outcome compared to the initial orders. The appeal was disposed of with the revised terms set by the Tribunal, reflecting a balanced approach in addressing the issues raised by the appellant.