2017 (12) TMI 821 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - misdeclaration of description of goods - demand of differential duty, redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Heavy melting iron scrap misdeclared as articles of iron and steel suggests that appellant had a pre-determined mind to suppress the actual description of the goods as well as value thereof - there shall be no question of interference to the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, arbitrary valuation by Revenue, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962

In this case, the appellant importer argued that the discrepancy in the goods imported, as identified by the Customs authority, should not hold them liable for any mistakes made by the foreign exporter. The appellant contended that the Revenue's valuation method was arbitrary, leading to the imposition of differential duty, redemption fine, and a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the correctness of the order passed by the lower authority.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that during a physical examination, the goods initially declared as heavy melting iron scrap were actually different articles of iron and steel. The appellant did not dispute this finding before the Customs authority. The Tribunal held that misdeclaration of goods satisfies the definition of "smuggled goods" under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962, making them liable for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized that a misdeclarant cannot challenge the valuation in smuggling cases. The deliberate misdeclaration indicated an intention to conceal the true nature and value of the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the valuation determined by the adjudicating authority, leading to the affirmation of the redemption fine and duty imposed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original order was upheld without any modifications.