2008 (7) TMI 399 - AT - Customs

The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order where the imported goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on redemption fine on the ground of mis-declaration and penalties was imposed - We find that the appellant declared the imported goods as melting scrap, on examination, goods were found to the prime quality varnished and rust free nails. As goods were found not as per the declaration, therefore, we find that transaction value was rightly rejected and the Commissioner of Customs while determining the value of the goods taken into consideration the value of similar goods imported into India and the value of imported raw material for the manufacture of nails for arriving at the assessable value. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant. The appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods.
3. Valuation of goods.

Analysis:

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported goods declared as heavy melting scrap, but upon examination, they were found to be prime quality varnished and rust-free nails. A show-cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods due to misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority reassessed the goods at a higher duty rate and ordered confiscation. The appellant argued that the goods were intended for melting purposes and not up to prescribed standards, hence cleared as scrap. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed nails, not scrap, based on examination results. Therefore, the misdeclaration was upheld, leading to the rejection of the transaction value.

Confiscation of Goods:
The appellant's goods were confiscated due to misdeclaration, with the adjudicating authority ordering the reassessment of duty and confiscation. The appellant contended that the goods were meant for melting purposes and did not meet standards, thus should be considered scrap. However, the Tribunal determined that the goods were prime quality nails, not scrap, based on examination findings. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods.

Valuation of Goods:
Regarding the valuation of the goods, the appellant argued that the transaction value was wrongly rejected, as the goods were meant for melting scrap. The appellant claimed that by treating the goods as nails, their value was inaccurately enhanced. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the goods were indeed prime quality nails, not scrap, and the Commissioner of Customs considered similar goods' import values and raw material costs to arrive at the assessable value of Rs. 31.11 per kg. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's assessment, finding that the goods were nails, not scrap, and upheld the Commissioner's valuation methodology. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the valuation and the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the misdeclaration of the imported goods as nails instead of heavy melting scrap, leading to the confiscation of the goods and the reassessment of duty. The Tribunal also supported the Commissioner's valuation methodology based on similar goods' import values and raw material costs, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.