2019 (12) TMI 657 - AT - Customs

Levy of ADD - H R Stainless Steel Sheets - rejection of declared value - Rule 5 and 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - benefit of N/N. 104/2011 dated 25.11.2011 - misdeclaration of goods based on examination of goods and Statement of the Director of the Appellants - quantum of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - On examination the goods were not found to be as declared by the appellants on the Bill of Entry. The examination was conducted in the presence of the representative of the CHA. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 06.07.2012, Shri Bharat N Kanungo admitted the fact about misdeclaration of the goods. He also admitted that supplier has described the goods at his instance in the manner they have been declared. He also stopped the further investigations in the matter as he waived the requirement of Show Cause Notice and sought the adjudication of the case after grant of personal hearing by the adjudicating authority. At the time of investigations i.e. examination of the goods or during the time when the statement of Shri Kanungo was being recorded, not even a single word in respect of Mill Test Certificate etc was stated. Further the Mill Test Certificates produced are the certificates not issued by the supplier to them, but are from certain manufacturing facility located in Belgium to the suppliers of good. There is nothing on record to co-relate the same with the goods imported as these were not produced with the import documentation nor find any mention on the said documents. Even Shri Kanungo has in his statement referred to the existence of any such Mill Test Certificates - there are no substance in the submissions of the appellants in this respect specifically when mis-declaration of the goods has been admitted by them. Since Appellants had waived of the requirement of show cause notice they could not in subsequent proceedings complain about the non supply of the relied upon/ relevant documents - In view of the above facts and admissions made we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the appellants relying on the standing order of 21.02.2009 in respect of the examination undertaken. The charge of misdeclaration of the goods is upheld - Since the goods have been misdeclared they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) ibid - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, Confiscation, Penalty, Redemption fine

Misdeclaration of Goods:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties due to misdeclaration. The Additional Commissioner had rejected the declared value of goods and ordered a re-determination based on contemporary import prices. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Secondary/defective sheets. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were misdeclared with the intention to undervalue them and avoid paying Anti Dumping Duty. The Director of the appellant admitted to misdeclaration and expressed readiness to have the goods assessed correctly. The misdeclaration was based on examination findings and the Director's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation and Penalty:
The Additional Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner upheld these orders, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued against the confiscation and penalties, citing various legal precedents and challenging the justification for the imposed fines.

Detailed Analysis:
The misdeclaration of goods was established through examination findings and the Director's admission, leading to the upheld confiscation and penalties. The appellant's arguments centered on challenging the misdeclaration, referencing invoices, packing lists, and legal precedents. However, the Tribunal upheld the misdeclaration charge, emphasizing the Director's admission and lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The reduction of fines was based on the total differential duty payable, indicating a partial allowance of the appeal due to excessive redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of admissions and examination findings in determining misdeclaration and subsequent penalties, despite the appellant's arguments challenging the basis for the imposed fines.