2017 (11) TMI 421 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - When the goods failed to be proved as waste but was found to be pipes and misdeclaration thereof, there was misdeclaration of description and value of goods. There is no material on record in defence of appellant to disturb the adjudication finding. Accordingly that is maintained - redemption fine and penalty also does not call for any reduction since reasonable dose of such fine and penalty has been imposed - appeal dismissed in toto.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods as scrap, Duty levy, Confiscation, Redemption fine, Penalty under Customs Act

Misdeclaration of imported goods as scrap:
The case involves the misdeclaration of 44.06 MT of pipes as stainless steel melting scrap during import, causing prejudice to the Revenue. The appellant's plea that the goods were misshipped without their knowledge and were considered scrap for melting purpose was not accepted by Customs. The adjudicating authority determined that the goods were usable pipes, not scrap, and valued them accordingly. The misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods was established, and there was no defense material provided by the appellant to challenge this finding.

Duty levy and Confiscation:
The Revenue argued that the appellant company, registered with the Central Excise authority, imported the misdeclared goods and that the plea of the goods being scrap for melting purposes was baseless. The principle of classification required that goods be assessed in the condition in which they were imported, leading to the proper levy of duty and confiscation of the consignment due to conscious and deliberate misclassification. The adjudicating authority imposed a duty, confiscation, redemption fine of ?15 lakhs, and a penalty of ?5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Redemption fine and Penalty under Customs Act:
The redemption fine and penalty were imposed based on the value of the misdeclared goods, which was determined to be ?1,05,39,373. Despite the appellant's appeal for reduction, the fine and penalty were upheld as reasonable, and no reduction was deemed necessary. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed entirely.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the adjudication finding that the imported goods were misdeclared as scrap when they were actually usable pipes. The duty levy, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act were deemed appropriate based on the misdeclaration and the value of the goods. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, maintaining the original decision.