2008 (11) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Valuation under Customs Misdeclaration Import of Goods The Commercial invoices dated 28-5-2002, 2-9-2002 and 15-10-2002 said to be from the supplier was produced belatedly along with reply dated 18-2-2005. The same supplier has earlier given documents to suit the convenience of the appellant facilitating mis-declaration of description and value. These are apparently solicited documents and have not been attested by the bank - The Department has preferred to rely on the prices indicated by the Managing Director of the appellant company in his first statement dated 8-1-2003 and claims that the prices indicated by the Managing Director of the appellant company in his second statement dated 20-6-2003 are after thought Held that - For these two commodities, the demand relating to both basic customs duty and anti-dumping duty should be calculated by adopting the higher prices mentioned in the second statement Duplicate demand set aside redemption fine reduced.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, valuation of goods, duty liability, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties

Mis-declaration of imported goods:
The appellant imported goods misdeclared as 2-keto guluconic acid, Formic acid, Trimethoprim, and Metronidazole to evade anti-dumping duties. The Managing Director admitted to the mis-declaration and provided varying values for the goods in different statements. The Commissioner relied on the first statement's values, leading to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,49,53,157/-, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties.

Valuation of goods:
The appellant argued for adopting the values from the second statement of the Managing Director, citing NIDB data and contemporaneous prices. The Tribunal considered both statements but upheld the first statement's values for ascorbic acid and adjusted values for Trimethoprim and Metronidazole based on the second statement and supporting invoices.

Duty liability and confiscation of goods:
The Tribunal reviewed the duty liability, redemption fines, and confiscation orders. It set aside the redemption fine of Rs. 9 lakhs and the duty demand on 575 kgs of goods. The duty liability was revised based on the adjusted values of the imported goods.

Imposition of penalties:
The penalties imposed on the appellant were reduced from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs due to the adjustments in duty liability and confiscation orders. The Tribunal considered the reduction in demand as a justification for lowering the penalties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of mis-declaration of imported goods, valuation of goods, duty liability, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the arguments presented by both parties.