2017 (11) TMI 1258 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of description and value of goods - view of Revenue is that the invoice which was filed alongwith the bill of entry was a fabricated one and the invoice which was found in the E-mail account should be considered as invoice for transaction which will establish the attempted mis-declaration of the appellant - Held that - when the bill of entry declared the products correctly alongwith value with supporting invoice, the charge of mis-declaration cannot be sustained on the basis of certain documents retrieved from the E-mail account of the appellant, which was never used for customs clearance - The failure of the appellant to get the IGM and bill of lading amended was construed as a mis-declaration by the Original Authority. We note that these two documents were not to be filed by the importer/appellants. Re-determination of declared value - Held that - Considering the nature of the goods and possible variation in appraising the case by different persons, we note that there is no case of misdeclaration of value. The duty difference comes to around ₹ 73,000/- only. When considering the total liability of duty being more than ₹ 70 lakhs such difference is mainly attributable to appraisal method and variation in opinion - rejection of declared value not justified. Even if the appellant had purported intention of mis-declaration the same has not manifested in their act. No confiscation or penalty can follow on an intend only, without an actual act of violation of the provisions of law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of goods, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalties, Competency of valuer, Under-valuation of goods, Correct classification of goods

Mis-declaration of goods:
The case involved mis-declaration allegations against the appellants based on discrepancies in the bill of lading and the computer printout of an unsigned commercial invoice. The Revenue claimed that the appellants attempted to mis-declare the goods to avoid penalties. However, the appellants argued that the bill of entry accurately reflected the goods and their value, and any discrepancies were promptly addressed with the supplier. The Tribunal found that the evidence from the E-mail account of the appellant did not substantiate mis-declaration as the filed invoice was genuine and discrepancies were not proven.

Confiscation of goods and Imposition of penalties:
The Original Authority had ordered the confiscation of goods, imposition of duty, redemption fine, and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants challenged these orders, stating that the goods were properly declared, and no mis-declaration occurred. The Tribunal noted that the bill of entry and supporting documents were accurate, and discrepancies found in other materials were not admissible as evidence. It was concluded that no confiscation or penalties could be justified based on intended mis-declaration without actual violation of the law.

Competency of valuer and Under-valuation of goods:
The Government-approved valuer's competency was questioned, and the valuation report's basis was challenged. The Revenue alleged under-valuation of goods, but the Tribunal found that the declared value was reasonable, and any differences were due to appraisal methods. The Tribunal emphasized that no substantial evidence supported the under-valuation claim.

Correct classification of goods:
Disagreement existed over the classification of goods, specifically glass chatons. The appellants argued for a different classification, which was not accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal did not find any grounds for confiscation or penalties based on the classification issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants due to the lack of merit in the mis-declaration allegations, the accuracy of the declared value, and the insufficiency of evidence to support the penalties and confiscation of goods.