2024 (8) TMI 1355 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - Rejection of declared value - redetermination of assessable value - Valuation Rules are to be followed sequentially through rules 4 to 9 or not - Confiscation - penalties. Mis-declaration of description or value of the goods or not - HELD THAT - It is a matter of record that the goods were examined under Panchnama and the quantity was found to be more than what was declared. When questioned, Ajay Garg said that he had declared less quantity so as to save shipping charges. It is also a mater of record that instead of mutilated articles what were found was old and worn cloths whose import was prohibited - the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are false and can be verified from the statements of Ajay Garg and from the orders of the lower authorities. Rejection of transaction value - HELD THAT - When the appellant himself has produced true invoices showing the correct transaction value and also tendered his statement to this effect, the proper course for the officer is to re-assess the Bills of Entry as per the correct transaction value declared by the appellant - If the officer had rejected the declared assessable value of 0.95 US dollars per kg submitted by the appellant as the correct transaction value, then he would have had to go through the Valuation Rules 4 to 9. The officer simply accepted the assessable value declared by the appellant as correct assessable value. There is no infirmity in re-determining the assessable value and calculating the differential duty on the basis of declared true invoices . Confiscation - redemption fine - penalties - HELD THAT - Since the mis-declaration of the nature of the goods, quanitity and value and import of the goods which were restricted without the required licence are not in dispute, the confiscation of the goods, the redemption fine and penalties need to be upheld. The impugned order needs to be sustained - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Order-in-Original regarding misdeclaration of imported goods, confiscation, and penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported woollen clothing declared as pre-mutilated hosiery but found to be non-mutilated, old clothing. The goods exceeded declared quantity, violating Foreign Trade Policy. Proprietor admitted misdeclaration and intention to sell in local market.

2. Confiscation and Penalties:
Additional Commissioner ordered confiscation under Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act, with redemption fine and penalties imposed for misdeclaration, misclassification, and import of restricted goods. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order.

3. Valuation of Goods:
Appellant argued re-determination of assessable value violated Customs Act Section 14, as declared value was correct. Claimed sequential application of Valuation Rules and lack of contemporaneous data. Department defended the impugned order.

4. Judicial Analysis:
Tribunal found appellant's submissions false based on recorded facts and statements. Rejecting declared value, the officer relied on true invoices provided by the appellant. Tribunal upheld re-determination of assessable value and differential duty calculation based on true invoices.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
Since misdeclaration and import violations were established, Tribunal upheld confiscation, fines, and penalties. Rejected appellant's arguments on valuation rules and affirmed the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed, sustaining the impugned order. The decision was pronounced on 29/08/2024.