2018 (8) TMI 40 - AT - Customs

Amendment of Shipping bills before export of goods - valuation of goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The goods were allowed to be exported after allowing the amendment to the documents presented and the respondent has already received the total foreign inward remittance and, therefore, there was no case of confiscation of said goods and imposition of fine and penalty. The charge of overvaluation is presumptive in nature and such charge could have been proved only if goods could be exported with declared value and export proceeds could not have been realized to the extent of such value. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of goods for mis-declaration of value.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-783-17-18 dated 18.08.2017.

Amendment of Shipping Bills under Section 149:
The case involved the respondent amending shipping bills for export of Agricultural and Horticultural machinery, reducing the FOB value from ?16,58,93,723 to ?8,70,79,045 under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the amendment, emphasizing that no loss occurred to the Department, and the goods were exported after the amendment. The Tribunal noted that Revenue did not challenge the amendment order, making it final. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that there was no basis for confiscation, fine, or penalty.

Confiscation of Goods for Mis-declaration of Value:
Revenue contended that the exporter mis-declared the value of goods, leading to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The exporter initially declared ?16.59 crores, later reduced to ?8.71 crores, indicating mala fide intent. However, the Tribunal found the charge of overvaluation presumptive, as the export proceeds matched the amended FOB value. The Chartered Engineer's report did not substantiate the mis-declaration, as the realized export proceeds aligned with the amended value. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's arguments, finding no grounds to challenge the Commissioner's decision.

Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-783-17-18:
Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the Order-in-Original confiscating goods and imposing fines and penalties. The Tribunal observed that Revenue did not challenge the amendment order under Section 149, which allowed the shipping bill amendment. As no loss occurred to the Department and the export proceeds matched the amended value, the Tribunal rejected Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the legality of the amendment under Section 149, lack of substantiated mis-declaration, and absence of grounds to challenge the findings. The appeal filed by Revenue was rejected, and the original decision was upheld.