2017 (6) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of description and classification of goods - CHQ Wire Rods - denial of exemption benefit claimed by appellant - Held that - There is no rebuttal to the NML report leading any cogent evidence to show that the goods of the description stated by in the NML report was not imported - Revenue s stand on the mis-declaration of the goods is established. So far as the valuation is concerned, once mis-declaration is established, the appellant loses its right to challenge the valuation further. Therefore, the valuation adopted by Revenue for adjudication remained unchallenged and duty is leviable thereon. Redemption fine and penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, valuation challenge, imposition of redemption fine, imposition of penalty

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration of the goods, as supported by the NML report. They believed in the exporter's declaration regarding the goods. However, the Revenue contended that the goods imported did not match the description in the Bill of Entry and were mis-declared, leading to the denial of exemption benefits claimed by the appellant. The NML report confirmed the mis-declaration, and the mis-declaration of both description and classification subjected the appellant to penal consequences and duty liability. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to rebut the NML report, establishing the mis-declaration of goods. The Commissioner's detailed examination of the case supported the Revenue's stand on mis-declaration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Valuation Challenge:
Once mis-declaration of goods was established, the appellant lost the right to challenge the valuation further. Therefore, the valuation adopted by Revenue remained unchallenged, and duty was held to be leviable based on that valuation.

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The redemption fine of ?5,75,000 imposed was deemed reasonable and not excessive, considering the value for which duty was levied. As there was no material to show that the fine was unreasonable, the redemption fine was upheld.

Imposition of Penalty:
Mis-declaration carries the consequence of illegitimacy, leading to the imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the appellant was upheld as a consequence of the mis-declaration of goods. Therefore, the penalty remained untouched.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decisions regarding mis-declaration of goods, valuation challenge, imposition of redemption fine, and imposition of penalty.