2018 (12) TMI 1121 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - melting steel scrap or not - enhancement of value based on NIDB Data - Held that - The goods imported have been agreed upon between the appellant and the seller as that of being melting scrap. All the requisite documents reveal the goods as that of being melting scrap. An identical question was considered by this Bench in the case of Vardhman Sales Agency 2018 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where it was observed that as long as the goods stand described in the import documents as scrap, there can be no charge for the mis-declaration based upon the visual examination of the goods and the findings of under-valuation arrived on the said ground itself cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods as melting scrap, Confiscation, Penalty imposition, Interpretation of import documents, Expert opinion vs. Visual examination

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD involved the appeal of an importer who declared imported goods as heavy melting steel scrap, but Customs officers found discrepancies during examination. The Revenue alleged mis-declaration and initiated proceedings, resulting in the confiscation of goods, enhanced valuation, and a penalty. The original adjudicating authority upheld these actions. The appellant contended that the goods were agreed upon as melting scrap between the parties and supported this claim with relevant documents. They also cited a Supreme Court decision allowing deviations from standard classifications by mutual agreement. The adjudicating authority, however, did not accept this argument, stating that the importer failed to prove the goods could not be used for other purposes. The Tribunal noted that as long as the import documents described the goods as scrap, mis-declaration charges based solely on visual examination were not valid. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that findings of under-valuation solely based on visual examination were not sustainable. Since there was no evidence of excess payment to foreign suppliers, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In summary, the issues involved in this judgment revolved around the mis-declaration of imported goods as melting scrap, the subsequent confiscation and penalty imposition, the interpretation of import documents, and the conflict between expert opinion and visual examination by Customs officers. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that as long as the goods were described as scrap in the import documents, mis-declaration charges based solely on visual examination were not justified.