2013 (8) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Fraudulent declaration of the description and under valuation of the goods assessee imported containers which were found to be vegetable oil instead of declared description of vegetable fatty acid Held that - Assessee fabricated import documents were presented so as to manage the import of goods undervalued and mis-declared them to evade customs duty - He suppressed the correct transaction value and description fraudulently - Goods liable to be confiscation u/s 111 (d) and (m) there was willful fraudulent intention to evade customs duty differential duty was demanded penalty was imposed assessee failed to establish the description of the declaration that established undervaluation by nature of the goods - appeal decided ex- parte decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods as vegetable fatty acid instead of vegetable oil.
2. Undervaluation of imported goods.
3. Allegations against the importer regarding fraudulent trade practices.

Analysis:
1. Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The judgment revolves around the mis-declaration of goods imported under bill of entry No. 635823 as vegetable fatty acid, whereas they were found to be vegetable oil upon testing. The investigation revealed that the importer engaged in fraudulent trade practices by mis-declaring the description and value of the goods. The importer, through fabricated import documents, attempted to evade customs duty by undervaluing the goods. The appellant failed to defend against these allegations, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of a fine.

2. Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The undervaluation of the imported goods was a significant issue in the case. The importer admitted to under-valuing the goods, which were actually valued higher in the international market. The customs authorities re-determined the value of the goods based on the actual transaction value, imposing a differential customs duty and penalty on the importer for undervaluation.

3. Allegations of Fraudulent Trade Practices:
The judgment highlighted various allegations against the importer, including fraudulent import practices, suppression of facts, mis-declaration of goods, and evasion of customs duty. The importer, along with the mastermind behind the import, was accused of importing goods under false descriptions to evade duty. The adjudication order detailed the acts of omission and commission by the importer, leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the adjudication based on the un-rebutted test reports, confessional statements, and evidence of fraudulent practices. The valuation of the goods was determined based on established guidelines and test results, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate declaration and valuation of imported goods to prevent customs duty evasion and fraudulent trade practices.