9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 546 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration in the quantity and value of imported goods - during the course of physical verification, the goods were not found as declared. Therefore, the appellant contended that it is an inadvertent mistake of the supplier of the goods - confiscation - penalty - Held that - the malafide intention of the appellants are missing - It is a fact on record that the appellant has declared the description, quantity and value of the goods as per the invoice/ packing list, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant that it is an inadvertent mistake of the supplier by non supplying the goods as per the invoice/order/ packing list - confiscation and penalty set aside. The goods on physical verification found different as per declaration made by the appellant and the value has been enhanced on the basis of market survey. As no market survey report has been placed on record, the value adopted by the adjudicating authority can be said to the true value of the goods. Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after providing the copy of market survey to the appellant defend their case - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Mis-declaration of goods leading to enhanced value, differential duty demand, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty imposition, market survey valuation, intent to evade duty, proper declaration of goods. Analysis: 1. Mis-declaration of Goods and Enhanced Value: The appellant imported goods with declared value of &8377; 20,80,570/-. However, discrepancies were found during physical verification, leading to an enhanced declared value of &8377; 38,09,463/-. The appellant contended that the discrepancies were due to errors by the supplier and not intentional. The adjudicating authority determined the value based on a market survey without providing the survey report. The Tribunal found that the malafide intention of the appellant was missing, as they relied on the supplier's declarations. Consequently, the goods were not held liable for confiscation, and no penalty was imposed. 2. Differential Duty Demand and Confiscation: The differential duty was demanded based on the enhanced value of the goods. The physical examination revealed discrepancies in the description of goods compared to the bills of entry. The Tribunal noted that the appellant acted in good faith based on the supplier's information. The goods were confiscated but allowed to redeem on payment of a fine. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty due to the inadvertent mistake of the supplier and lack of malafide intent by the appellant. 3. Market Survey Valuation and Remand: The adjudicating authority determined the value of goods through a market survey, but the survey report was not provided to the appellant. The Tribunal held that the market survey report should be disclosed to the appellant for a fair adjudication. As the report was not available, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing the survey report to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of transparency in valuation based on market surveys. 4. Intent to Evade Duty and Proper Declaration: The appellant argued that there was no intent to evade duty, attributing discrepancies to errors by the supplier. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of malafide intent on the part of the appellant, who relied on the supplier's declarations. Citing previous legal decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the penalty for improper importation was not applicable in this case. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted the opportunity to defend their case with access to the market survey report. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing all relevant information for a fair adjudication and upheld the principle of no penalty imposition in the absence of malafide intent.
|
