2016 (9) TMI 467 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of consignment option to redeem on payment of redemption fine mis-declaration - yarn waste - polyester sewing thread examination of consignment admitted by the appellant that consignment of polyester sewing thread sent to appellant without his knowledge a strenuous attempt to differentiate the contents of 160 jumbo poly bags with that of in 530 corrugated Boxes Held that - the Appellant had mis-declared the imported goods as polyester yarn waste , whereas, in fact, they imported new sewing threads which were ready for sale. The proprietor of the Appellant nowhere disputed the test result that the goods imported were not polyester sewing thread but waste yarn as declared by them. Further, on chemical examination, the goods were certified in both the cases as sewing thread other than waste yarn. Also, the Appellant has failed to produce the evidence to justify their case that the contents of 160 jumbo poly bags were Yarn Waste - the determination of assessable value by the Department on the basis of market enquiry found correct while the sales invoices submitted by the Appellant rejected appeal disposed off decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of mis-declared goods as 'Polyester Yarn Waste on Baby Cone'; Confiscation and redemption of goods; Discrepancy in assessable value determination; Rejection of sales invoices; Differentiation between goods in corrugated boxes and jumbo poly bags; Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The case involves the import of goods mis-declared as 'Polyester Yarn Waste on Baby Cone', which upon examination were found to be new sewing threads ready for sale. The Appellant admitted to the mis-declaration, attributing it to the overseas supplier sending excess goods. The Customs examination and chemical analysis confirmed the true nature of the imported goods as sewing thread, not yarn waste. The Appellant's explanation was deemed unsubstantiated, leading to the rejection of their plea.

2. Confiscation and Redemption of Goods:
The Adjudicating authority directed the confiscation of the imported goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The Appellant contested the confiscation related to goods in jumbo poly bags, arguing against their similarity to goods in corrugated boxes. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation decision, emphasizing the consistent certification of the goods as sewing thread and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the goods in poly bags were yarn waste.

3. Assessable Value Determination and Sales Invoices:
The Appellant challenged the assessable value determined by the Department, citing a discrepancy with the value in submitted sales invoices. Despite the submission of invoices, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a market enquiry to ascertain the value of the goods. The Tribunal supported this approach, dismissing the Appellant's contention and upholding the Commissioner's decision on the assessable value.

4. Differentiation between Goods in Corrugated Boxes and Jumbo Poly Bags:
The Appellant attempted to differentiate the goods in corrugated boxes from those in jumbo poly bags to contest the confiscation. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, as both sets of goods were certified as sewing thread through examination. The lack of evidence supporting the claim that the poly bags contained yarn waste further weakened the Appellant's position in this regard.

5. Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The Appellant's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the mis-declaration of goods, the rejection of the Appellant's explanation, and the reliance on market enquiry for assessable value determination. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was affirmed, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.