2007 (9) TMI 61 - Commissioner - Customs

Confiscation fine and penalty - Demand were based on allegation of misdecleration regarding valuation of goods and goods were unbranded quality and under invoiced in order to evade custom duty - Allegation not sustained and demand set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged mis-declaration and under-valuation of imported goods.
2. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty.
3. Discrepancies in branding and manufacturer details.
4. Valuation of goods based on transaction value versus MRP.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged mis-declaration and under-valuation of imported goods
The importer filed a Bill of Entry for Car Waxes, Polishes, and Washers. Suspected under-valuation led to an investigation and a Show Cause Notice for mis-declaration and under-invoicing. The adjudicating authority accepted the transaction value but imposed a Redemption Fine and Penalty. The appellants contested that non-declaration of MRP does not constitute mis-declaration and argued for the goods' duty-free status under Chapter 3404.

Issue 2: Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty
The appellants argued that the Redemption Fine and Penalty were unsustainable, pointing out discrepancies in the lower authority's decision. They provided evidence of similar consignments being released earlier and challenged the imposition of fines based on MRP non-declaration.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in branding and manufacturer details
The adjudication order highlighted discrepancies in branding and manufacturer details of the imported goods. The importer declared the items with part numbers, but discrepancies arose regarding the brand and manufacturer. The adjudicating authority rejected contentions of mis-declaration, as the goods were not declared as unbranded, and the invoice clearly stated the manufacturer's name.

Issue 4: Valuation of goods based on transaction value versus MRP
The adjudicating authority rejected the rejection of transaction value, finding no basis to invoke Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules. It was concluded that there was no mis-declaration of value, and the invoice value was accepted. The scrutiny of relevant notifications revealed exemptions for certain goods from MRP-based valuation. Past practices and clear exemptions led to the setting aside of the alleged offences, including the fine and penalty.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the confiscation of goods and the imposed fines and penalties, finding them unsustainable based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.