2022 (5) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Reclassification of goods and re-determination of the value - vessel URU BHU, V.W053 - imposition of anti-dumping duty - confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT - The appellant in this case had declared the country of origin as Malaysia, as against the actual country of origin as Europe. Thus, in this regard, mis-declaration is evident and the declared value is liable for rejection in terms of Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. It is an admitted fact on record that the Bills of Entry were filed on 21/12/2009, much after the date of issuance of the Notification No. 38/2009-Cus. dated 22/04/2009, in imposing the anti-dumping duty. Hence, the stand taken by the appellants that such duty cannot be levied on the appellant is factually incorrect. It is also a fact on record that the appellant had not filed the IGM correctly inasmuch as there is mis-declaration of goods furnished therein. Further, no amendment of IGM had ever been sought by the person in-charge of the vessel, before filing the B/Es by the appellants. Since there is incorrect mention of dutiable goods in the IGM, the same are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since, the appellants herein have not submitted any plausible evidence or records to prove the case otherwise, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be interfered with at this juncture - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Mis-declaration of goods, imposition of anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, reduction of quantum of fine and penalties.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a common issue arising from an impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. The case pertained to the mis-declaration of goods in the import documents related to a vessel carrying stainless steel melting scrap 430 grade. The Department initiated show-cause proceedings against the appellants for reclassification of goods, re-determination of value, imposition of anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order with modifications in the quantum of redemption fine and penalties. The appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had declared the country of origin incorrectly as Malaysia instead of Europe, leading to mis-declaration. The declared value was liable for rejection under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. The Bills of Entry were filed after the issuance of the Notification imposing anti-dumping duty, contrary to the appellants' claim. The Tribunal noted mis-declaration in the IGM and the failure to seek amendments before filing the Bills of Entry. As there was incorrect mention of dutiable goods in the IGM, confiscation was deemed appropriate under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the fines and penalties, the Tribunal upheld the decision, citing the appellants' failure to provide evidence to challenge the findings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The decision was pronounced in open court on 28.04.2022.