2018 (9) TMI 1735 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - First quality Oryx unpolished marble slabs - rejection of declared value - Mis-declaration of description and quantity of goods - it was alleged that the description of the goods was misdeclared as unpolished marble slabs whereas the imported lot was polished slabs and also in 8 crates examined out of 47 crates, there is excess quantity ranging from 1.41% to 17.609% - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty. Held that - The appellants have imported polished marble slabs from China and Sultanate of Oman and filed different Bills of Entry. The invoices, packing list and the LOC describe the goods to be unpolished marble slabs whereas on inspection / physical examination of the goods, it was found that the impugned goods were polished marble slabs. There was misdeclaration. The price of goods which are differently described in documents cannot be held to pertain to the impugned goods - Department has made out a strong case of misdeclaration against the appellant. As such, the confiscation upheld under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid. Rejection of declared value - value was arrived in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 making reference to NIDB data - principles of natural justice - Held that - Though the appellants had tried to make a case of not being heard before such a decision was taken, the Department has put the appellants to a reasonable notice by way of query at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. The appellants have taken around two months time to comply with the query. Therefore it has to be held that a reasonable time and opportunity has been given to them. only at the instance of the appellant, a written show-cause notice was not issued as brought out by the learned AR - Therefore, the value has been correctly redetermined by the authorities. Redemption fine and penalty also upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, rejection of declared value, confiscation under Customs Act, 1962, determination of value under Customs Valuation Rules, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, misrepresentation of facts before the Tribunal.

Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported polished marble slabs but described them as unpolished in the documents. The Customs authorities found misdeclaration upon physical examination. The misdeclaration led to a strong case against the appellants, justifying confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Rejection of Declared Value and Redetermination:
The declared value was rejected as it did not represent the actual transaction value. The value was redetermined under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, referring to NIDB data and selecting the least available value. The Department provided a reasonable opportunity by raising queries during the Bill of Entry filing, allowing the appellants time to comply. The redetermined value was deemed correct by the authorities.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Department presented a compelling case for imposing redemption fine and penalty, which the Tribunal found valid. No interference was warranted with the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal concerning the two appeals.

Misrepresentation of Facts:
The appellants misrepresented facts before the Tribunal, such as correcting the description in the Bill of Entry only after Departmental intervention. They also misled the Bench regarding the issuance of show cause notices. The Tribunal noted the misrepresentation but lacked authority to file a complaint against the appellants for such actions.

Conclusion:
The appeals were rejected, upholding the Order-in-Original in appeal No.C/324/2008 and Order-in-Appeal in appeal No.C/107/2009. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 25/09/2018, highlighting the misdeclaration, value rejection, fine imposition, and misrepresentation issues addressed in the judgment.