2017 (3) TMI 55 - AT - Customs

Valuation - misdeclaration of value - quantity - appellant claim that neither there was any contemporaneous import nor any material on record to show that there was mis-declaration of the value - Held that - When it was found that imported goods were undervalued in comparison to immediate past imports made by same appellant in two different names, its conscious knowledge to mis-declare value of import was established - The mis-declaration of value was willful in addition to mis-declaration of quantity - mis-declaration of quantity and value is established. Considering that the goods were not branded goods, it is considered proper that imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- may not be unjustified - in cases of mis-declaration, confiscation being warranted, quantum of penalty justified. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of quantity and value in import, imposition of differential duty, redemption fine, penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.

Misdeclaration of Quantity:
The appellant vehemently opposed the assessable value determined by Customs, arguing that there was no contemporaneous import or evidence of mis-declaration of value. While extra quantity was found during examination, it was contended that this should only lead to penalties, not a complete disruption of the declared value. However, the show cause notice revealed a discrepancy in the quantity imported, with the appellant declaring 4413 cordless phones while the actual count was 4431. The misdeclaration of quantity was thus established.

Misdeclaration of Value:
The show cause notice also highlighted the misdeclaration of value based on the importer's previous imports under different names. The appellant had imported similar goods in the past through different firms, undervaluing the goods compared to immediate past imports. This conscious knowledge of undervaluation established a willful misdeclaration of value, in addition to the misdeclaration of quantity. The appellant failed to prove that the goods imported previously were different from those covered in the present import, further confirming the misdeclaration of quantity and value.

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
Considering the assessable value determined by Customs and the nature of the goods as non-branded, a redemption fine of ?2,00,000 was deemed appropriate, despite the appellant's objections. The Tribunal found this imposition justified in light of the misdeclarations established.

Penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act:
The law dictates that in cases of misdeclaration warranting confiscation, the Tribunal does not interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act was confirmed, as it remained untouched by the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed partly, confirming the duty not disputed and maintaining the penalty imposed.

This judgment addresses the issues of misdeclaration of quantity and value in import, imposition of differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the findings of misdeclaration based on discrepancies in quantity and value, leading to the confirmation of the imposed penalty and the partial allowance of the appeal.