2018 (12) TMI 618 - AT - Customs

Reclassification of the imported goods - revaluation - goods declared as Aluminium Scrap Throb Grade - Sl.No.579 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. - Held that - Indubitably, NML is a reputed and recognized testing centre of a national stature. As such, credence will certainly have to be accorded to these test reports of NML. If the appellants had found any inconsistency or discrepancy in the NML reports, they could have challenged the same or asked for retest of the samples, neither of which been done in this case. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the reclassification of the goods and also the consequent enhancement of the value. Redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The enhancement of value is around ₹ 10 lakhs resulting in differential duty liability of around ₹ 4.8 lakhs - there is a case for reduction in the quantum of redemption fine - reduction of redemption fine allowed - quantum of penalty also reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reclassification of imported goods based on test reports.
2. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed.
3. Penalty under Section 112 (a) ibid.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reclassification of imported goods based on test reports
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry claiming customs duty exemption for Aluminium Scrap Throb Grade. However, the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML) concluded that the goods were Aluminium Alloy Ingots - LM 24 Grade. The original authority reclassified the goods based on this report, leading to an increase in value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Tribunal noted that NML is a reputable testing center, and since the appellants did not challenge the reports or request retesting, the reclassification was upheld.

Issue 2: Confiscation and redemption fine imposed
The original authority ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (m) but allowed redemption under Section 125 on payment of a fine. The redemption fine was initially set at ?14,00,000. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' argument that the redemption fine was disproportionate, considering the demurrage charges of ?6 lakhs incurred. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to ?3,00,000 and the penalty under Section 112 (a) to ?1,00,000, taking into account the differential duty liability and demurrage costs.

Issue 3: Penalty under Section 112 (a) ibid
The penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) was initially set at ?2,50,000. However, based on the appellants' argument regarding the demurrage charges and differential duty liability, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to ?1,00,000. This reduction was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and the proportionality of the penalties imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by upholding the reclassification of the imported goods based on the NML test reports but reducing the redemption fine and penalty amounts due to the demurrage charges and differential duty liability incurred by the appellants.