2018 (5) TMI 1852 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - mis-declaration of value - rejection of declared value - High Seas Sales basis - Held that - As against the declared goods of H.R. Sheets of 2.5 mm thickness, the goods were found to be of entirely different specification of 25 mm as found during the search on 5-12-2007. Since entirely different goods were found, misdeclaration on the part of the importer is established and hence is liable to be sustained. Consequently, the order of confiscation made under Section 111(l) as well as (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the lower authority is justified and hence upheld. The redemption fine and penalty is on the higher side. Accordingly, while upholding the re-assessment of value and payment of differential duty, the redemption fine and penalty reduced by 50%. Thus the appellant will get partial relief - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods leading to confiscation, reassessment of value, redemption fine, and penalty.

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, regarding the misdeclaration of imported goods. The goods, described as "H.R. Sheets" of 2-5 mm thickness, were found to be of 25 mm thickness during examination. The Customs Department rejected the declared unit value and reassessed it to USD 815 (CIF), demanding differential duty and ordering confiscation of the goods. The appellant contended that the goods were purchased on High Seas Sale basis and the supplier had mistakenly supplied the wrong goods. The appellant requested the acceptance of the transaction value and setting aside of redemption fine and penalty.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that there was no intentional misdeclaration, emphasizing that the goods were purchased on High Seas Sales basis from the original importer, who admitted the mistake in supplying the wrong goods. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative justified the impugned order, stating that the goods were entirely different from the declared specifications, justifying the confiscation and penalty imposed.

After considering both sides' submissions and examining the records, it was found that the imported goods were indeed different from the declared specifications, establishing misdeclaration and justifying the confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal upheld the lower authority's order of confiscation. However, considering the circumstances, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty by 50%, providing the appellant with partial relief.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the reassessment of value and payment of differential duty upheld, but with a reduction in redemption fine and penalty.