9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods leading to attempted duty evasion; Valuation of goods for customs purposes.
In this case, the appellant, a manufacturer of woollen products, entered into a contract for the purchase of woollen rags from a supplier in Holland. However, upon arrival, it was discovered that a portion of the goods was synthetic rags instead of woollen rags as per the contract. The appellant notified the supplier, who acknowledged the error and offered a concessional price for the goods. Despite this, the Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration to evade duty and ordered confiscation of the goods, imposing fines and penalties. The appellant contended that the mix-up was genuine, supported by the supplier's refund of a significant amount, which would not have occurred if there was intentional misdeclaration. The Tribunal found the charge of misdeclaration unproven, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the Customs' decision. The Tribunal also questioned the valuation of the synthetic rags at a higher price, noting inconsistencies in the evidence provided. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Customs' order and directing the reassessment of the goods at a lower valuation, ensuring any refunds due to the appellant are provided.
|
