2019 (1) TMI 1725 - AT - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - import of cold-rolled stainless steel sheets - allegation that the importer had misdeclared the imported goods as hot-rolled stainless steel sheets in order to avoid anti-dumping duty - case of appellant is that the shipment was prior to the date of N/N. 38/2009-Cus., dated 22-4-2009 imposing anti-dumping duty on cold-rolled stainless steel coils - intent to evade present or not - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - There was a misdescription of the goods by the appellant, but it is not coming forth from the record that intentionally they have misdeclared the goods to avoid the anti-dumping duty. There are no discrepancy in directing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty - However, in the interest of justice, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the quantum of fine and penalty appears to be too harsh and disproportionate, the same is thus reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, liability for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty, intention to evade anti-dumping duty.

In this case, the appellant imported goods declared as "hot-rolled stainless steel sheet" but upon examination, it was found to be "cold-rolled stainless steel," attracting anti-dumping duty. The Department noticed the misdeclaration and directed confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption on payment of fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the misdeclaration was due to the mistake of the overseas supplier, not intentional evasion of duty. The Revenue contended that despite evidence of the supplier's mistake, misdeclaration occurred, justifying confiscation and penalty.

The key question was whether the misdeclared goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and if the penalty imposed was legal. The appellant claimed the misdeclaration was unintentional, citing the overseas supplier's error. Evidence showed the supplier acknowledged the mistake, supporting the appellant's defense. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Act and found misdescription but no clear intent to evade duty. Consequently, while upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty considering the circumstances, modifying the impugned order accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the order to reduce the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of intent in cases of misdeclaration and the discretion of authorities to adjust penalties based on the circumstances of each case.