2019 (5) TMI 1730 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - JBL iPod dock (JBL Mx150/30 speaker) - whether classified under section 77 of the heading no. 8518 2200 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under classifiable under heading no. 8527 9100 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT - The impugned order is premised on the finding that the goods were declared as speaker and that corresponding to such description is heading no. 8518 2200 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Though the importer did declare the goods as speaker , we are unable to perceive that it could foster a wrong impression in the minds of examining officer. This was not an assessment under the risk management system but of physical ascertainment on first check basis. The finding that the expression speaker does not apply at all to the function of an iPod dock, which in addition to other functions, is also a speaker, cannot be viewed as an attempt to mislead. The finding in the impugned order to the effect that there has been a mis-declaration is based on certain premises such as the regularity of imports, the value thereof and the relationship between the supplier and the importer. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detriments of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962
2. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
3. Invocation of section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962
4. Mis-declaration of goods in bill of entry

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the detriments of redemption fine and penalty imposed under sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the import of goods declared as 'JBL iPod dock (JBL Mx150/30 speaker)' by M/s Sahil International. However, upon examination, the goods were classified as 'audio systems' under a different heading of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant questioned the imposition of redemption fine and penalty in relation to the particulars in the bill of entry filed for warehousing.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no intent to mis-declare the goods, as the details in the bill of entry matched the invoice and bill of lading. The appellant contended that the use of the term 'speaker' in the description was not intentional mis-declaration but was derived from the bill of lading. The responsibility for correct assessment was placed on the assessing officer, citing a Supreme Court decision in Northern Plastic Ltd v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1988 (101)( ELT 549 (SC)].

3. The Authorized Representative for the respondent argued that the inclusion of 'speaker' in the description was an attempt to mislead the customs officer, invoking section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was emphasized that the material particulars in the entry filed under section 46 of the Customs Act should be relevant to the assessment of the bill of entry.

4. The Tribunal examined the impugned order and found that although the goods were declared as 'speaker', it did not create a misleading impression during physical examination. The Tribunal noted that the term 'speaker' in addition to other functions was also applicable to an iPod dock. The decision to declare mis-declaration was based on factors like import regularity, value, and supplier-importer relationship. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to uphold the order of confiscation and penalty imposition, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.