2018 (7) TMI 1296 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - Flash Butt Welding Machine - benefit of N/N. 84/97-CUS dated 11.11.1997 denied - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The Adjudicating authority observed that it is not a bonafide mistake since it took five months to issue a revised invoice and therefore penalty would be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Adjudicating authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry dated 14.08.2007. He has also dropped the demand of duty. The Adjudicating authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act, 1962 and therefore the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is not justified - However, there is a mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry and the imposition of penalty is warranted. However, the quantum of penalty is excessive and the same is required to be reduced. Redemption fine set aside - penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of value, confiscation of goods, demand of duty, imposition of penalty, amendment of Bill of Entry

Mis-declaration of value:
The appellant imported a "Flash Butt Welding Machine" and claimed exemption under a notification. A mis-declaration of value was found during scrutiny, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of goods, duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating authority observed that the revised invoice submitted by the appellant was not a bonafide mistake, imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry related to the mis-declaration.

Confiscation of goods:
The Commissioner held that two Flash Butt Welding Machines were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. One consignment was released without confiscation, while a fine was imposed for the other consignment. The Adjudicating authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act, which influenced the decision on confiscation and redemption fine.

Demand of duty:
The demand of duty was contested by the appellant, citing possession of a valid duty exemption certificate at the time of import. The Adjudicating authority agreed that the demand of duty was not legally sustainable as the importers had a valid exemption certificate, fulfilling post-importation conditions. The authority noted that even if the correct value was declared, no duty would have been levied due to the exemption certificate.

Imposition of penalty:
The appellant argued against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Adjudicating authority reduced the penalty amount but upheld the imposition based on mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry. The authority allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry, affecting the decision on penalty and confiscation.

Amendment of Bill of Entry:
The Adjudicating authority permitted the amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the appellant's request and the revised invoice submitted. This amendment influenced the decisions on duty demand, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the redemption fine and reducing the penalty amount. The appeal was disposed of with the penalty reduced to ?1 Lakh, emphasizing the importance of proper declaration and compliance with exemption certificates in import transactions.