2018 (7) TMI 1230 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of value of imported goods - Confiscation of goods - Held that - It was the responsibility of the Appellant importer to inform the exporter and the courier to mention correct details in the documents. Further the Bill of Entry could not have been filed without intimating the Appellant. The charges of mis-declaration are thus sustainable as the Appellant did not adduce any evidence that they had instructed/ informed courier of licence fee amount to be included in assessable value - the goods has been rightly confiscated. Penalty u/s 112(a) of CA - Held that - The enhancement of value is due to suppression of the fact related to the contract of licence. Since this fact was not known to the courier M/s DHL, he can not be implicated for misdeclaration of value due to non inclusion of licence fees - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of licence fee in the assessable value under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
2. Mis-declaration of value leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Liability of courier company for misdeclaration of value.

Issue 1: Inclusion of licence fee in the assessable value under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
The case involved the importation of Beta Tapes of various programs by an appellant, with the issue arising regarding the inclusion of licence fees in the assessable value. The importer had declared values lower than the actual assessable value, leading to a show cause notice proposing the enhancement of declared values under Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Adjudicating Authority held that licence fees were required to be included in the assessable value, even if the misdeclaration was unintentional. The Authority rejected the declared values, ordered confiscation of goods, and imposed penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Mis-declaration of value leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties:
The appellant contended that the misdeclaration of value was unintentional, attributing it to miscommunication between the exporter, courier, and themselves. They argued that they had instructed the courier to file the regular Bill of Entry after including the licence fee. However, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the importer's responsibility included informing the exporter and courier of the correct details. The Tribunal affirmed the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, emphasizing that even unintentional misdeclaration attracts penalties.

Issue 3: Liability of courier company for misdeclaration of value:
Regarding the liability of the courier company, the Tribunal found that the enhancement of value was due to the suppression of facts related to the licence contract, which the courier was unaware of. As the courier was not informed of the licence fees to be included in the assessable value, they were not held liable for misdeclaration. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the courier company under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the importer but allowed the appeal filed by the courier company.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues of including licence fees in the assessable value, misdeclaration of value leading to confiscation and penalties, and the liability of the courier company in cases of misdeclaration. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and penalties for the importer while setting aside the penalty imposed on the courier company due to lack of knowledge regarding the licence fees.