2023 (8) TMI 862 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - mixed items of Hair Accessories, Imitation Jewellery accessories etc. - excess weight in the imported consignment as against the declared weight in the Bills of Entry - wrong declaration made about the composition of the imported goods as MS (Mild Steel) - rejection of declared value - redetermination of transaction value - HELD THAT - The overseas supplier M/s Landmark EXIM (HK) Co., Hong Kong vide letter dated 10.02.2012 has confirmed that due to oversight they had shipped more quantity of the subject goods to the appellant. On perusal of the case records, it is found that the appellant had no intention in wrong filing of the Bills of Entry and based on the available records, they had complied with the requirement of filing Bills of Entry for the imported consignment. However, since the provisions regarding particulars required for assessment has not been declared correctly as found out in the examination conducted by the Department, they have not complied with the Customs law in proper perspective and thus, Section 111 ibid is attracted for confiscation of goods and for imposition of redemption fine. Therefore, the order passed by the lower authority that the appellant is exposed to the penal consequences provided in the statute, is agreed upon. Considering the peculiar facts of the case that on the basis of wrong documents submitted by the overseas entity, the appellant had filed the Bills of Entry, the lenient approach can be adopted in reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is modified to, the extent of reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 04 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 01 lakh respectively. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved: Mis-declaration of imported goods, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:
The case involved M/s Asha International importing goods declared as mixed items of Hair Accessories and Imitation Jewellery accessories, but upon examination, it was found that there was excess weight in the consignment and misdeclaration regarding the composition of the goods. The Department initiated proceedings, rejected the declared value, and imposed a redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal against the original order was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant appealing to the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the excess quantity of goods was due to a mistake by the overseas supplier, which was acknowledged in writing. They contended that without specific allegations of fraud or collusion, they should not be liable for the fines and penalties imposed by the Department.

The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings of the impugned order, stating that misdeclaration of the goods warranted confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted the acknowledgment by the overseas supplier regarding the excess quantity of goods. While recognizing the lack of intent by the appellant in the misdeclaration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not complied with Customs law requirements, leading to the application of Section 111 for confiscation and penalties. However, considering the circumstances where the appellant relied on incorrect documents from the overseas entity, the Tribunal opted for a lenient approach, reducing the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 4 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh.