1993 (11) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of import license and mis-declaration of goods.
2. Under-valuation of imported goods.
3. Confiscation of goods, assessable value determination, and imposition of fine and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of import license and mis-declaration of goods
The appeal challenged an order by the Additional Collector of Customs regarding the import of old and used Diesel Engines. The Customs found the goods suitable for use in motor vehicles and not as declared for trawlers. The value declared was deemed low and inaccurate. The appellants were charged with using invalid import licenses and mis-declaring the goods. The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal. The appellants admitted the license issue due to lack of knowledge but contested the valuation discrepancies.

Issue 2: Under-valuation of imported goods
The Customs compared the declared value with similar Japanese-origin diesel engines imported through Cochin Customs and quotations from Singapore, finding the declared value to be low. The appellants argued that the engines were much older than those used for comparison, but failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's valuation based on available information and deemed it reasonable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 3: Confiscation of goods, assessable value determination, and fine/penalty imposition
The Additional Collector confiscated the goods, enhanced their assessable value, and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and value determination but reduced the fine to Rs. 3 lakh and the penalty to Rs. 30,000 due to the appellants' lack of prior offenses. The Tribunal found the Collector's valuation justified and not arbitrary, maintaining the order's validity while adjusting the financial penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and assessable value determination but reduced the fine and penalty due to the appellants' clean record. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate valuation and compliance with import regulations, even when contesting discrepancies.