2017 (11) TMI 490 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - request for amendment of the said bill of entry on the ground that goods covered by another invoice dated 16/09/2016 have not been included in the bill of entry - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - It is clear that initially the appellants filed a bill of entry with one invoice and thereafter requested for amendment by adding another invoice of the same date. The description and the quantity of the import consignments were also amended. However, on detailed examination it is noticed that even after amendment there were wide variations between the declared items and the actual import. There were violations of BIS/IPR regulations in respect of certain items. The findings of the Original Authority with reference to mis-declaration are categorical and revealing - It is expected that a bonafide importer will be aware of the contents of items imported by him. During the course of argument, the learned Consultant was specifically asked that in case the importer was apprehending any mix up of the consignments he should have got the matter verified and confirmed from the exporter. For this, he replied that even the exporter is not fully aware of the contents of the shipped consignments. We find such situation is totally untenable and this cannot be the basis for a claim that the appellants are not liable for any mis-declaration made in the bill of entry. On their own admission it is clear that the value declared in the B.E. is not acceptable in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - We note that for goods valued at ₹ 44.39 lakhs and ₹ 19.61 lakhs redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs have been fixed. We note the said redemption fine is on the higher side as per the standards generally adopted in respect of fixing of redemption fine - the goods have been re-exported. The appellant, apparently could not sell these items in domestic market for any profit. Considering the facts of the case, we find the fines could be fixed at ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2 lakhs - penalty imposed on the main appellant is also accordingly reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs. Penalty on the second appellant, Customs Broker - Held that - In fact, the items were mis-declared in various parameters. The appellant/Customs Broker s role in this case cannot be considered as part of their routine activity - penalty imposed on the second appellant upheld except for reduction of the same to ₹ 1 lakh keeping in view the reduction considered for fines and penalty on the main appellant. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against mis-declaration of goods, IPR/BIS violations, under-valuation, confiscation of goods, redemption fines, penalties under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The case involved appeals against an order dated 28/10/2016 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, regarding mis-declaration of goods imported from China. The main appellant, M/s G.M. Enterprises, and the second appellant, M/s I.G. Cargo Services, a customs broker, were involved. The goods were subjected to detailed examination, revealing discrepancies in quantity, description, and value. The Original Authority found mis-declaration, IPR/BIS violations, and under-valuation, reassessing the goods at a higher value and ordering confiscation with redemption fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The main appellant's consultant argued that the mis-declaration was unintentional, requesting a reduction in redemption fines and penalties. They claimed lack of full details on the imported items, despite importing similar items for 10 years. The second appellant's role was defended, stating they acted promptly to request examination before assessment, denying involvement in mis-declaration.

3. The Authorized Representative (AR) supported the Original Authority's findings, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and justifying the redemption fines and penalties imposed. The AR highlighted the need for detailed examination of electronic goods due to IPR violations and under-valuation risks.

4. The Tribunal found that even after amendments to the bill of entry, significant discrepancies existed between declared and actual imported items, with violations of BIS/IPR regulations. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' claims of lack of awareness regarding the import contents, emphasizing the expectation of importers to be fully informed. The request for first check examination was seen as an attempt to avoid penalties.

5. The Tribunal upheld the mis-declaration charge against the main appellant, emphasizing the importance of accurate declarations to Customs Authorities. The valuation of goods was analyzed, with the Tribunal agreeing with the Original Authority's application of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal found the redemption fines and penalties excessive, reducing them to meet the ends of justice.

6. The fines were reduced for both the main appellant and the second appellant, the customs broker, considering the re-export of goods and lack of profit margin. The penalties were also reduced for both appellants, except for the second appellant, whose penalty was reduced to ?1 lakh. The appeals were dismissed, except for the reductions in fines and penalties as determined by the Tribunal.