2018 (6) TMI 1444 - AT - Customs

Confication - Misdeclaration of imported goods - The description in Bill of Entry and invoice was of Hot rolled stainless steel Plate/ Sheet cutting grade 304 stock lot and chapter heading was shown as 72192390, whereas goods were found to be 24.975 Mts and were cold rolled steel sheets/ plate cuttings - Held that - The description of the goods and weight were not found as per the invoice enclosed and Bill of Entry filed by the Appellant. In such circumstances the goods has been confiscated on ground of misdeclaration - confiscation upheld. Redemption fine - penalty - Held that - Looking to the fact that it is nowhere appearing from the case records and the adjudication order that the Appellant has committed deliberate act of misdeclaration, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
Misdeclaration of goods leading to confiscation, imposition of redemption fine, penalty under Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Goods and Confiscation:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the misdeclaration of goods. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of stainless steel coil, declaring it as Hot Rolled stainless steel Plate/ Sheet cutting grade 304 stock lot. However, upon examination, it was found to be Cold Rolled stainless steel sheets/plate cuttings. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were misdeclared and liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act. The Appellant contended that they had ordered Hot Rolled goods, but received Cold Rolled goods. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed misdeclared, leading to confiscation. However, considering the lack of evidence of deliberate misdeclaration and the minimal differential duty involved, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

2. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The adjudicating authority had ordered the confiscation of goods with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the redemption fine was excessive compared to the value of the goods and the difference in duty amount. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, acknowledged the misdeclaration but noted the absence of evidence of intentional misdeclaration. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 1 lakh and the penalty to &8377; 50,000, considering the minimal differential duty involved and the lack of deliberate intent on the part of the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order to reduce the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declaration of goods and the consequences of misdeclaration under the Customs Act.