2016 (9) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Rejection of declared value by customs - import of high speed steel tape - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 opinion sought by chartered engineer Confiscation of consignments and levy of penalty - Held that - though enhancement of value is found to be sustainable, it is clear that there is no malafide or mensrea on the part of the appellant, when it declared the value in the Customs documents and the enhancement of value is the result of the legal provisions regarding determination of the assessable value for the customs purposes confiscation and penalty set aside enhancement of value upheld appeal allowed decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Customs valuation of exported goods
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties

Analysis:
1. Customs Valuation of Exported Goods:
The case involved the export of high-speed steel tape by the appellant, which was contested by the Customs department due to a discrepancy in the declared value. The Chartered Engineer's opinion valued the goods significantly lower than the declared amount, leading to show cause proceedings against the appellant. The adjudication order rejected the declared value, redetermined the value under Customs Valuation Rules, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines and penalties. The appellant argued that the specialized nature of the product justified the declared value and that there was no intention to defraud the government. The Tribunal acknowledged the sustainability of the enhanced value but noted the absence of malafide intent on the appellant's part. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the redemption fine and penalties due to the absence of fraudulent intent.

2. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The Customs department had confiscated the goods and imposed fines and penalties on the appellant based on the discrepancy in the declared value of the exported goods. However, the Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, found that the appellant had not acted with malafide intent. As a result, the confiscation of goods and the imposition of penalties were deemed unwarranted in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that the redemption fine and penalties were set aside, providing relief to the appellant in this regard.