2018 (9) TMI 48 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - requirement of specific import license - Confiscation - enhancement of value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of Customs duty - Held that - All the goods imported by the appellant were classifiable under ISRI specifications of 1997 and the same were falling under Sub-heading 760020010. As a result there has been no mis-declaration - Also before enhancing the assessable value revenue has to first establish that the price is not the sole consideration and such exercise was not carried out in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, confiscation of goods, enhancement of value for customs duty assessment, classification of goods, requirement of import license, penalty imposition.

Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The case involved the mis-declaration of imported goods, where the appellant declared "Aluminium Scrap Taint Tabor" and "Aluminium Scrap Talk" for clearance, but upon examination, it was found that the actual goods included "Aluminium Scrap Taint Tabor" and "Aluminium Radiator Scrap without copper tubing." The mis-declaration led to a violation of the Customs Act, 1962. The value declared by the importer was also deemed lower than the NIDB data, resulting in the enhancement of the assessable value for both items by the Appraising Officer.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Imposition:
Due to the mis-declaration and violation of import regulations, the Original Authority ordered the confiscation of the imported goods under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer was given an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Additionally, a penalty was imposed under Section 112 of the Act for the mis-declaration and violation.

Classification of Goods and Import License Requirement:
The issue of misclassification of goods under CTH 76020010 was raised, as the goods imported were properly classifiable under CTH 76020090, requiring a specific import license from DGFT. The importer failed to produce the necessary import license, leading to further complications regarding the classification and licensing requirements.

Enhancement of Value for Customs Duty Assessment:
The enhancement of the assessable value of the goods was based on NIDB data and was carried out by the Appraising Officer following the rules of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The value was redetermined using the Residual method after sequential application of Rule 4 to Rule 8, resulting in an increased assessable value compared to the declared value by the importer.

Appellate Tribunal Decision:
The appeal was heard by the Appellate Tribunal, where the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as the goods imported fell under the ISRI specifications of 1997. The Counsel also contended that the value enhancement was not done following the proper procedure outlined in the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant's submissions valid in law, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The appellant was entitled to consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of mis-declaration, confiscation of goods, value enhancement, classification, import license requirement, and penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the final decision by the Appellate Tribunal.