2018 (8) TMI 42 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The Appellant has not adduced any evidence that the courier was not authorised by them to file Bill of Entry or they had intimated him to file Bill of Entry after including the licence fee - 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 and the goods has been rightly confiscated - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of value in Bill of Entry leading to confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, and reduction of redemption fine.

Analysis:
The case involved the mis-declaration of value in the Bill of Entry by the importer, leading to the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and a subsequent appeal. The Appellant had imported goods through an authorized courier, who declared a significantly lower value than the actual license fee to evade customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority found that the license fee should have been included in the assessable value as per Customs Valuation Rules. The mis-declaration was discovered during the examination of documents related to payment and the license agreement, leading to the decision to enhance the declared value to the correct amount of &8377; 4,40,501. The Adjudicating Authority also ordered the confiscation of goods under relevant sections and imposed a penalty on the Appellant. The Appellant's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in a reduction of the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

The Appellant contended that they had directed the Customs House Agent (CHA) to file the regular Bill of Entry with the correct value, denying any intention to evade duty. However, the Tribunal found that the responsibility to ensure accurate details in the documents rested with the importer, and the mis-declaration charges were justified. While the mis-declaration warranted the confiscation of goods, the Tribunal noted that the duty amount arising from the increased assessable value was only &8377; 67,612. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 35,000, and the penalty was reduced to &8377; 15,000. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order accordingly, emphasizing the importer's responsibility to ensure accurate declarations in customs documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties due to the mis-declaration of value in the Bill of Entry. Despite acknowledging the duty enhancement arising from the correct assessable value, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty considering the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declarations by importers and the consequences of mis-declaration in customs documentation, emphasizing the need for compliance with customs valuation rules and regulations.