2024 (6) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - calculation of differential duty - HELD THAT - It is observed that apparently and admittedly vide the Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014, the appellant had declared about importing three display cabinets classifying them under CTH 94035090. The value of the recovered goods was reassessed and the differential duty was calculated. Apparently and admittedly, the said duty has been deposited by the appellant on 25.09.2014 itself - though vide a letter dated 18.05.2015 (received by department on 20.05.2015), the appellant has mentioned that they had paid the differential duty under pressure and in lieu of the early release of the detained goods. However, there is no denial in the said letter about the goods found in 40 feet container imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 were found to be freezers instead of display cabinets. There is no denial in the said letter that the goods were mis-declared as display cabinets under CTH 94035090 which were meant for wooden furniture. The value of freezers, found on examination, has been reassessed. There is nothing on record produced by the appellant to show that the reassessed value has been assessed in violation of statutory provisions and to prove that value reassessed is not the market value of freezers. The adjudicating authorities below have also held that appellant has adduced no evidence to falsify the alleged mis-declaration which is per se apparent as instead of declared display cabinets, freezers were admittedly found stuffed in the container imported vide the impugned Bill of Entry. The appellant has even failed to give the manufacturer invoice. The appeal is accordingly ordered to be dismissed on merits as well as for want of prosecution on part of the appellant and for want of his presence. The order is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Mis-declaration of goods in import, differential duty calculation, reassessment of goods value, non-appearance of appellant.

The appeal was filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal dated 01.12.2020 regarding mis-declaration of goods in import under Bill of Entry No. 6606748 dated 01.09.2014 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The goods were declared as display cabinets but found to be freezers, leading to a proposed confiscation of seized goods, differential duty demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant admitted mis-declaration, paid partial duty, but failed to provide transaction value. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal confirmed the proposal, which the appellant contested before the Tribunal. None appeared for the appellant during the proceedings. The Departmental Representative argued that the reassessed value was accepted and paid by the appellant voluntarily, citing a previous Tribunal order. The appellant's non-appearance and lack of prosecution were noted. The Tribunal observed the discrepancy between declared display cabinets and actual freezers in the consignment, with no evidence to challenge the reassessed value. The appellant's letter mentioning payment under pressure did not deny the mis-declaration. The appellant's failure to provide evidence or comply with release directions was highlighted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and appellant's non-prosecution.

In the case, a specific intelligence report highlighted mis-declaration of goods in an import consignment, where freezers were declared as display cabinets in the Bill of Entry. The appellant admitted to the mis-declaration, paid partial duty, but did not provide the transaction value. The subsequent Show Cause Notice proposed confiscation of goods, differential duty demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant's appeal against the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal was rejected, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant did not appear despite multiple adjournments, leading to the Departmental Representative presenting arguments. The appellant's lack of appearance and non-prosecution were noted, with reliance on a previous Tribunal order where reassessed value acceptance was emphasized. The Departmental Representative reiterated findings supporting the reassessed value and lack of challenge from the appellant's side.

The Tribunal observed the discrepancy between the declared display cabinets and the actual freezers found in the consignment. The reassessed value was accepted and paid by the appellant, with no evidence presented to challenge it. The appellant's letter mentioning payment under pressure did not refute the mis-declaration. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's failure to provide evidence, comply with release directions, or appear before the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit and non-prosecution.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order, finding no infirmity in the decision. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit, non-prosecution by the appellant, and absence during the proceedings.