1986 (12) TMI 241 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Misdeclaration of the country of origin.
3. Validity of import licenses.
4. Imposition of fines and penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The appellant, M/s. Janta Traders, imported five consignments of YKK Brand Zip Fasteners and declared a CIF value of Rs. 4,49,011. The Revenue authorities enhanced this value to Rs. 8,85,998 based on price lists dated 1-5-1980 and 1-6-1980 and invoices from other importers. The appellant argued that the prices were negotiated and supported by certificates of origin and invoices from Hong Kong suppliers, showing the goods were of Japanese origin. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to prove undervaluation, especially since the appellant's transactions were at arm's length and there was no evidence of clandestine remittance. The Tribunal accepted the declared value based on the appellant's invoices and certificates.

2. Misdeclaration of the Country of Origin:
The appellant declared the origin of the goods as Hong Kong, while the certificates of origin indicated Japanese manufacture. The appellant argued that this was a mistake by the Custom House Agent. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed of Japanese origin but imported through Hong Kong, and the appellant had no intent to deceive. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence of intentional misdeclaration.

3. Validity of Import Licenses:
The Revenue argued that the import licenses covered goods worth Rs. 4,49,011 only, while the actual value was Rs. 8,85,998, resulting in goods valued at Rs. 4,36,987 being imported without a valid license. The Tribunal, however, concluded that since the declared value was accepted, the issue of license validity did not arise. The Tribunal found that the licenses were valid for the declared value of the goods.

4. Imposition of Fines and Penalties:
The Collector of Customs imposed fines and penalties under Sections 111(d) and (m) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Board reduced these fines and penalties. The Tribunal quashed the fines and penalties, stating that the Revenue failed to establish mens rea or intentional wrongdoing by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and require clear evidence of intent to deceive, which was not present in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting the declared value of the imported goods and quashing the fines and penalties imposed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the Revenue authorities to give consequential relief to the appellant.