9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 391 - AT - CustomsQuantum of redemption fine - penalty - Valuation of imported goods - Printing Rollers - undervaluation - mis-declaration of the goods as regards the country of origin - intent to evade - Confiscation - Held that - The original authority arrived at a conclusion that there was mis-declaration of the goods as regards the country of origin with a sole view to evade duty of customs. The said fact also was further corroborated by un-retracted statement of the importer. It is also seen that the importer, in his statement recorded during investigations, gave the details of the original price of the goods, which tallied with the manufacturer s price and the reduced price as reflected in the invoices. The differential duty is only to the extent of ₹ 2,00,000/-, which stands confirmed by us as not challenged. As such, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that the redemption fine of ₹ 4,00,000/- is on the higher side - quantum of redemption fine as well as penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Mis-declaration of country of origin, evasion of customs duty, confirmation of duty, redemption fine, penalty
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, the appellant imported "Printing Rollers" from the UK but mis-declared them as of German origin to evade customs duty. The appellant admitted to directing the supplier to undervalue the goods in the invoices, which was not retracted. The original authority found mis-declaration to evade duty, supported by the importer's un-retracted statement and the price details matching the manufacturer's price. Consequently, the duty of around ?2,00,000 was confirmed, with goods confiscation and an option for redemption on payment of ?4,00,000 fine, along with a penalty of ?2,00,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. The appellant sought reduction in the redemption fine and penalty, not challenging the merit of the issue. The Tribunal acknowledged the confirmed duty of ?2,00,000 and agreed that the redemption fine of ?4,00,000 was excessive, reducing it to ?2,00,000. The penalty was also reduced from ?2,00,000 to ?1,00,000. Apart from these modifications, the appeal was rejected.
|
