2017 (1) TMI 9 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - confiscation with redemption fine and penalty - scarf mixed colour - mis-declaration of description, quantity and value of goods - classification of goods - classified under Chapter 6214 9060 or under 6117 8090 or under 6214 3000 - suppression of facts - Held that - it is clear that this is a simple case of wrong supplies by the supplier where instead of 48 cartons of socks, 47 cartons of men s hand gloves and leggings were supplied. Consequently, the orders issued by Lower Revenue Authorities (Impugned Order-in-Appeal as well as Order-in-Original dated 22.10.2013) are hereby set aside. All the declared goods deserve clearance in terms of the findings given above; the goods which have been supplied by mistake i.e. Men s gloves and leggings have also to be cleared under appropriate headings and on appropriate payment of duty of customs - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value for imported goods and confiscation of goods with imposed fines and penalties.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, M/s. M.B. Marketing and Shri. Sandeep Chabra, appealing against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Order-in-Original No.53/2013. The main issue revolved around the rejection of the declared value for imported goods and the confiscation of goods, along with imposed fines and penalties.

The appellants had filed a Bill of Entry declaring an assessable value for goods involving a duty amount. However, upon examination, discrepancies were found in the goods imported, leading to a dispute over the classification of scarves with different compositions. The Department alleged mis-declaration of description, quantity, and value of goods to evade customs duty, while the appellants argued it was a case of wrong supply by the supplier.

In the dispute over the classification of scarves, the appellants contended that the Revenue arbitrarily classified the goods under a specific heading, while they believed the goods deserved a different classification with the same rate of duty. The case involved detailed examination of the facts, submissions from both sides, and references to relevant case laws.

The judgment highlighted that the charge of mis-declaration was not proven as the appellants demonstrated that the discrepancies were due to a technical mistake by the supplier, not an intent to evade duty. The classification of goods and valuation by the Department were found to lack legal basis, leading to the rejection of the imposed fines and penalties.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Lower Revenue Authorities, allowing both appeals in favor of the appellants. The judgment emphasized that the goods, even if supplied mistakenly, deserved appropriate clearance and duty payment based on the findings presented during the case proceedings.