9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of description and value of goods. 2. Liability of goods to confiscation. 3. Justification of imposition of penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Misdeclaration of Description and Value of Goods The appellants imported two consignments of 232 cartons containing 60,000 gross sets declared as "Metal fittings rivets (rivets for leather goods)" and filed two bills of entry for their clearance. The Department alleged that the appellants had actually imported snap fasteners consisting of four pieces (top, socket, stud, and post) in three different sizes (VT2, VT3, and VT5) of the "swallow-RK" brand. The importation was split into two consignments to evade customs duty and clear the goods against an REP licence for rivets. The appellants had an REP licence for rivets but not for snap fasteners. The goods were examined and found to be "Snap fasteners" and not "Rivets." The appellants did not produce any literature or catalogue to prove otherwise. The Collector noted that during a personal hearing, the appellants' advocate admitted that the imported goods were not similar to the two-piece rivets of the "Kane-M" brand shown by him. The appellants had agreed to pay duty at the standard rate as on "snap fasteners," which contradicted their claim that the goods were rivets. 2. Liability of Goods to Confiscation The Collector clubbed the goods imported under two bills of entry, concluding that the imported goods were snap fasteners and not rivets. This action was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Girdharilal Banshidhar v. Union of India, which held that importing components of a prohibited article was equivalent to importing the prohibited article itself. The appellants' import licence was valid for metal fittings other than zip/snap fasteners, and they could import snap fasteners only to the extent of 10% of the licence value. The import was in contravention of Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. 3. Justification of Imposition of Penalty The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants, considering the misdeclaration of the description and value of goods to evade ITC restrictions and customs duty. The redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation, which was not considered excessive given the correct assessable value of the goods (Rs. 5,38,030.64). The penalty was deemed commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Conclusion The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, concluding that there was clear misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods, justifying the confiscation and imposition of penalty. The appeal was dismissed.
|
