9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 15 - AT - CustomsReduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - mis-declaration of description of imported goods - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value - confiscation of imported goods - HELD THAT - In this case, the invoice value was correctly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority for the reason the goods which were imported were completely different from those which were declared. The price declared in the invoice was for LED TVs whereas what were imported were smart LED TVs. Further, what was declared was 740 pieces and what was actually imported was 742 pieces. During investigation, the appellant has submitted five letters to the Department accepting the re-determination of the duty and agreeing to pay the differential duty along with applicable fine and penalty on the re-determined value. It further waived the issuance of the show cause notice. Based on the information and evidence produced in the form of files before the appellant by the officers, the appellant has voluntarily suggested/accepted that the price of smart LED TVs imported by it must be U.S. 163 per unit - It is not open for the appellant to question that the price having accepted the same and further having undertaken to pay the differential duty accordingly. Therefore, even the reduction of the assessable value to U.S. 147.5 by the Joint Commissioner does not appear to be correct. Nevertheless, this reduction has not been assailed by the Revenue and is said to be based on another value found in another case of M/s Mittal Impex - the redetermination of the assessable value and consequently the determination of the duty liability by the Adjudicating Authority as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is correct and calls for no interference. Confiscation of the goods under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - Any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Customs Act are liable for confiscation under this section. It is undisputed that both the nature of the goods imported and the quantity of the goods imported did not correspond to the declaration made in this case. Further, the value declared was also much lower and was, even according to the documents produced by the appellant, not the price of smart LED TVs which were imported - there are no infirmity in the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111 (m) or in giving the option of redemption under section 125 by the Original Authority. While fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed by the Original Authority it was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. This reduction of fine has not been assailed by the Revenue. We, therefore, find no infirmity in both the confiscation of the goods and also in the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The specific finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the appellant had, on his own, sought recall of the Bill of Entry and, therefore, had no malafide intention. There is no appeal by the Revenue against this finding. Having found that the appellant had no intention, the Commissioner (Appeals) has still proceed to confirmed a reduced penalty under section 114AA upon the appellant - It is found that this cannot be sustained because once the intention is lacking, no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant under section 114AA. The appeal by the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that the penalty imposed under section 114AA is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order is, however, upheld - Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved
1. Rejection of declared assessable value and re-determination of value. 2. Confiscation of imported goods under section 111(m). 3. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a)(ii). 4. Imposition of penalty under section 114AA. Detailed Analysis Issue I: Rejection of Declared Assessable Value and Re-determination of Value The appellant declared the value of imported Tecmax LPD TV Model-40 at U.S. $66 per piece, classifying them as parts of TV under CTH 85299090. Upon examination, it was found that the goods were complete smart LED TVs, not parts, and the quantity was 742 instead of 740. The appellant agreed to the re-determined value of U.S. $163 per TV and waived the issue of a show cause notice. The Joint Commissioner later adopted a lower value of U.S. $147.5 per TV based on contemporaneous imports by M/s Mittal Impex. The Tribunal upheld the re-determination of the value, noting the appellant's acceptance of the revised value during the investigation and the lack of evidence supporting the declared value. Issue II: Confiscation of Imported Goods under Section 111(m) The goods were confiscated under section 111(m) due to discrepancies in the declared nature, quantity, and value of the imported goods. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the confiscation, noting that the goods did not correspond with the entry made under the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-, a decision not contested by the Revenue. Issue III: Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) Section 112(a)(ii) allows for a penalty not exceeding ten percent of the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000/-, whichever is higher. The differential duty in this case was Rs. 13,68,819/-. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, finding it just and fair given the circumstances. Issue IV: Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA Section 114AA requires knowledge and intention to make, sign, or use any false or incorrect declaration or document. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no malafide intention on the appellant's part, noting that the appellant had voluntarily sought the recall of the Bill of Entry. Despite this finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 13,68,819/-. The Tribunal set aside this penalty, concluding that without intention, no penalty under section 114AA could be sustained. Conclusion The appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty under section 114AA set aside, while the remaining parts of the impugned order were upheld. The Tribunal affirmed the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and penalties under sections 111(m) and 112(a)(ii), but found the imposition of penalty under section 114AA unsustainable due to the lack of intent.
|
