2016 (4) TMI 681 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Import of LED TV s - Goods covered under clearance on the basis of MRP value - Differrantial duty and interest paid immediately before issuance of Order-in-Original - Appellant contended that there was no intention to evade duty and mis-declaration of MRP was a bonafide mistake on the part of their Customs Broker Agent - Held that - there is no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of appellant. As the importer has paid the differential duty and interest before issuance of the Order-in-Original, so it is found to be a fit case for reduction of redemption fine. It is also seen that the importer had paid 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the redemption fine of ₹ 22 lakhs imposed by the Original Adjudicating authority is reduced to ₹ 7 lakhs. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of MRP on Bill of Entry leading to demand of differential duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, and appeal against impugned orders.

In this case, the Appellant, engaged in trading LED TVs, imported goods with a mis-declared MRP on the Bill of Entry. The declared MRP was lower than the actual MRP affixed on the packages, resulting in a demand for a significant differential duty. The importer contended that the mis-declaration was a bonafide mistake by their Customs Broker Agent due to urgency during the Diwali season. Despite paying the differential duty and interest before the Order-in-Original (OIO), the Customs authorities confirmed the demand, confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 22 lakhs, and a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer argued against the confiscation and penalty, emphasizing the lack of intent to evade duty. The Revenue, however, argued that the mis-declaration constituted a serious offense justifying the seizure and confiscation of goods, along with sustaining the redemption fine and penalty.

After considering both parties' contentions, the Tribunal acknowledged the mis-declaration of the MRP on the Bill of Entry. While the importer claimed it was a bonafide mistake, the lack of evidence to support this assertion led the Tribunal to agree with the Revenue's position. However, recognizing that the importer had promptly paid the differential duty and a portion of the penalty, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to reduce the redemption fine from &8377; 22 lakhs to &8377; 7 lakhs. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original was upheld with this modification, concluding the appeal in favor of the reduced redemption fine but maintaining the original decision on the penalty and confiscation of goods.