2010 (1) TMI 552 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of goods short paid duty - Confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act - Commissioner could not have ordered confiscation and redemption fine in the instant case as the goods had been allowed clearance unconditionally Held that - order of confiscation and fine is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods value
2. Confiscation of machinery under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Penalty imposed under Section 114(A) of the Act
4. Appeal against the order of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:

Mis-declaration of imported goods value:
The case involved the import of used machinery by M/s. Amar Industries, where it was found that the appellant had mis-declared the value of the goods, leading to short payment of duty. The jurisdictional authorities investigated the transaction and confirmed the mis-declaration, resulting in the imposition of penalties and confiscation of machinery under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of machinery under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The original authority had enhanced the assessable value of the goods and ordered the confiscation of the machinery under Section 111(m) of the Act. Additionally, a fine was imposed for redemption of the confiscated goods. However, during the appeal before the Tribunal, it was argued that since the goods had been released unconditionally on payment of assessed duty, the confiscation and redemption fine were not justified. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and set aside the order of confiscation and fine.

Penalty imposed under Section 114(A) of the Act:
A penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 114(A) of the Act for mis-declaration of the imported goods' value. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, considering the mis-declaration by the assessee. However, it set aside the confiscation and redemption fine, noting that the goods had been cleared unconditionally.

Appeal against the order of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals):
The appeal before the Tribunal challenged the order of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confiscation and redemption fine. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case records, partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the confiscation and fine while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellants for mis-declaration of the goods' value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant for mis-declaration but set aside the confiscation of machinery and redemption fine as the goods had been cleared unconditionally. The judgment serves as a precedent highlighting the importance of accurate declaration of imported goods' value to avoid penalties and confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.