2009 (6) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Moulds imported for manufacture of refrigerators - Upon physical examination, the goods were found to be old and used and reconditioned . case of misdeclaration of description of the goods made on ground that hese adjectives were, not used in the bill of entry. - Whether new or old, these moulds could be imported under EPCG Scheme Therefore, the appellant s omission to add words like old and used in the bill of entry is inconsequential. In this view of the matter, I hold that there was no misdeclaration of description by the appellant. Regarding misdeclaration of value it is fact that only two out of seven items taken for enhancement of value declared value accepted in respect of other items - importer accepted the enhanced value of two goods thereby tacitly accepting the misdeclaration of value. hence redemption fine and penalty has to be reduced

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of description of goods, misdeclaration of value, confiscation of goods, imposition of fine, imposition of penalty.

Misdeclaration of Description of Goods:
The appellant filed a bill of entry under the EPCG scheme seeking clearance of imported moulds for refrigerators. The goods were found to be 'old' and 'used' upon physical examination, although these terms were not used in the bill of entry. The department proposed misdeclaration due to the discrepancy. The appellant later amended the EPCG license to reflect the true nature of the goods. The Tribunal held that under the EPCG scheme, old and new goods could be imported without differentiation. Thus, the omission of 'old' and 'used' in the bill of entry was inconsequential. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating no misdeclaration of description was established.

Misdeclaration of Value:
Enhancement of value was proposed for two items after examination by chartered engineers, where the depreciated value exceeded the declared value. The Commissioner confiscated the entire consignment based on misdeclaration of value. However, the Tribunal found that only two items had misdeclared values, while the rest were accepted as declared. The order of confiscation was deemed unjustifiable. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation only for the two items with enhanced values, as the importer tacitly accepted the misdeclaration. The redemption fine was significantly reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000 accordingly.

Confiscation of Goods, Imposition of Fine, Imposition of Penalty:
The Commissioner had initially ordered the confiscation of the imported goods under the Customs Act, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal modified the order, upholding the confiscation only for the two items with enhanced values. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal sustained the Commissioner's order with these modifications, disposing of the appeal accordingly.