9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 69 - AT - CustomsMis-declaration of goods - Re-Rollable Steel Scrap - Difference of opinion - Held that - In view of difference of opinion emerging between the Hon ble Member on the issue of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant, the registrar is directed to place the matter before the Hon ble President for nominating the third Member for resolving the following Whether in view of high sea purchase and declaration in bills of entry, in all these appeals redemption fine and penalty should be reduced to 10% of the fine and penalties imposed by original adjudicating authority in each case, as held by the Hon ble Member (Judicial)? - matter referred to Third member.
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods in the IGM and bill of entry. 2. Request for amendment of the IGM from heavy melting scrap to Re-Rollable Steel Scrap. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties. 4. Reduction of redemption fine and penalties. 5. Difference of opinion on the amount of redemption fine and penalty. Analysis: Issue 1: Misdeclaration of imported goods The appellants, importers of waste and scrap, declared the goods as Steel Scrap in the bill of entry, while the shipping line described them as heavy melting scrap in the IGM. The appellants requested an amendment to change the description to Re-Rollable Steel Scrap, admitting that the misdeclaration was made to save customs duty. Issue 2: Request for amendment of the IGM The shipping line and the appellants sought to amend the IGM from heavy melting scrap to Re-Rollable Steel Scrap after realizing the misdeclaration. The Commissioner observed that such misdeclarations are confiscable and attract penalties, rejecting the appeals against the decisions. Issue 3: Confiscation and penalties The goods were seized, giving the appellants an option to redeem them by paying fines and penalties. The lower authorities upheld the penalties due to the misdeclaration made by the appellants to evade customs duty. Issue 4: Reduction of redemption fine and penalties Considering the correct declaration in the bills of entry and the admission of misdeclaration being at the behest of the appellants, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalties to 10% of the original amount imposed by the adjudicating authority. Issue 5: Difference of opinion on redemption fine and penalties A difference of opinion arose between the Members regarding the reduction of redemption fine and penalties. One Member advocated for a 10% reduction, citing high sea purchase and correct declarations. The other Member upheld the original penalties due to admitted abetment by the importer and gross misdeclarations in the goods. In conclusion, the appeals were rejected due to the misdeclarations, but the redemption fine and penalties were reduced to 10% of the original amount imposed by the adjudicating authority, considering the circumstances of the case.
|
