2015 (11) TMI 883 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Demand of differential duty - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - appellant has mis-declared the quantity and certain goods was not declared by the appellant nor in the invoice. We also find that the appellants were fully aware of the quantity and also description and the proposed value which they have initially clearly admitted in their statement before the investigating authority and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority has dealt the issue both on the value as well as on mis-declaration in detail and clearly rejected the transaction value and sequentially proceeded to re-determine the value sequentially for Rule 4 to Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules. - present case is not only mis-declaration of value but the appellants have also mis-declared the quantity and also description and also certain goods were not even declared. The lower appellate authority has also rightly examined their plea and gave clear finding on the appellant s contention for variation in quantities. Accordingly, rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty and the confiscation are liable to be upheld. - However, redemption fine is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of quantity, value, and description of imported sports goods.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 13.10.2006, focusing on the mis-declaration of quantity, value, and brand description of imported sports goods. The appellant initially declared a value for the goods, which was later enhanced based on intelligence findings by the SIIB of Customs. The adjudicating authority increased the value, demanded differential duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the value enhancement was not justified, citing various legal precedents. The Revenue contended that the appellant admitted to mis-declaration and waived the show cause notice and personal hearing.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed mis-declared the quantity and description of the imported sports goods. The appellant's statement, waiver of show cause notice, and personal hearing indicated their awareness of the mis-declaration. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the transaction value and proceeded to re-determine the value based on Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's arguments on value enhancement, noting that the cited legal precedents were not applicable to the present case. The lower appellate authority's detailed findings supported the rejection of the transaction value, demand for differential duty, and confiscation of goods.

Regarding the imposition of fines and penalties, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine but upheld the penalty, considering the overall circumstances of the case. The reduction in the redemption fine was from Rs. 3,85,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, while the penalty imposed was deemed nominal and thus upheld. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld with the mentioned reduction in the redemption fine, granting the appeal party consequential benefit.