2018 (8) TMI 43 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - 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 - Confiscation upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of value leading to imposition of penalty, redemption fine, and confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Mis-declaration of Value and Customs Violation:
The case involved the mis-declaration of value by the importer regarding the assessment of imported goods, specifically related to the non-disclosure of the payment of license fees. The Adjudicating Authority held that the license fees were includable in the assessable value as per Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The mis-declaration was considered a breach of provisions to evade duty, leading to the proposal of enhancing the declared value and imposing penalties and confiscation under sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Defence and Appeals:
The Appellant contended that the mis-declaration 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 license fee, indicating no intention to evade duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order but reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

3. Tribunal's Decision and Modification:
Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found the charges of mis-declaration sustainable, emphasizing the importer's responsibility to provide correct details to the exporter and courier. While upholding the confiscation of goods, the Tribunal acknowledged the duty amount arising from the increased assessable value and reduced the redemption fine to ?50,000 and penalty to ?20,000. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of accurate declaration of values in customs transactions, emphasizing the consequences of mis-declaration even if unintentional. The case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of importers to ensure compliance with customs regulations to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.