2024 (5) TMI 572 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of the retail Sale Price (RSP) - Evasion of payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) - demand - redemption fine - confiscation - Penalty - Imports goods as Dove AP Original Whitening, Dove AP Silk Dry Whitening, Dove AP GF Cucumber and Dove AP Grapefruit Anti-perspirants - Unintentional mistake in declaring the lower RSP in the B/E - HELD THAT - Though, the appellant s submission is convincing that there was unintentional mistake in declaring the lower RSP in the B/E, but the statutory provisions have been designed in the way that there is no escape route to avoid confiscation of goods, which do not correspond in respect of the value declared in the Bill of Entry. When the goods are liable for confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty u/s 125 ibid and Section 112(a) ibid respectively are automatic and thus, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities in ordering for confirmation of the redemption fine and penalties on the appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pine Chemical Suppliers 1992 (9) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT , by upholding the order passed by the Tribunal, has held that mis-declaration of the goods imported by the appellants rendered the same liable to confiscation u/s 111(m) ibid and attracted Section 112 ibid for imposition of penalty for improper importation thereof. Thus, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of imported goods under Tariff Item 3307 20 00, mis-declaration of Retail Sale Price (RSP) to evade payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), confiscation of imported goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of redemption fine u/s 125 and penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Classification of Goods and Mis-declaration of RSP:
The appellant filed Bill of Entry (B/E) claiming classification of imported goods under Tariff Item 3307 20 00. The Customs authorities found a discrepancy in the declared Retail Sale Price (RSP) and the RSP pasted on the package of the goods. The Department alleged mis-declaration of RSP to evade payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD). The Additional Commissioner of Customs held that CVD shall be charged based on the higher RSP of Rs.185/- per piece and imposed penalties under Section 111(m) and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Confiscation of Imported Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant argued that the lower RSP declared in the B/E was an error due to a communication gap and not an intentional act to defraud the Government revenue. The appellant contended that confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) was not justified. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that non-declaration of actual RSP in the B/E rendered the goods liable for confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the differential CVD amount and penalties without protest, acknowledging the error in RSP declaration. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision of confirming redemption fine and penalties, citing statutory provisions that do not allow for avoiding confiscation of goods with discrepancies.

Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that while the lower RSP declaration may have been an unintentional mistake, statutory provisions do not provide leeway to avoid confiscation of goods with value discrepancies. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, emphasizing that mis-declaration of imported goods renders them liable to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the orders of the lower authorities regarding redemption fine and penalties.