1996 (9) TMI 436 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of goods and value for customs clearance.
2. Violation of Import and Export Control Act regarding the nature of goods.
3. Discrepancy in the description of goods as leather belts or PVC leather belts.
4. Examination of goods and value determination by the Additional Collector.
5. Testing of samples and disagreement with the Additional Collector's findings.
6. Valuation of goods as PVC leather belts.
7. Surrender of goods by the appellant due to delay in adjudication order.
8. Imposition of penalty for violations of law.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, an exporter of garments, imported readymade garments with PVC leather belts from Taiwan. The Custom House disputed the declared value and nature of goods, leading to an adjudication by the Additional Collector. The Collector found the goods to be leather belts, not PVC as declared, and enhanced the value for customs purposes, confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty.

2. The license produced by the appellant did not cover the import of PVC leather belts, as indicated in the documents. This discrepancy led to a violation of Import and Export Control Act provisions, according to the Additional Collector.

3. The key issue was determining whether the goods were leather belts or PVC leather belts. Various documents described the goods differently, with the Bill of Entry initially mentioning PVC but later striking it off. The examination by the Additional Collector and subsequent testing of samples revealed conflicting findings.

4. The Additional Collector's examination and valuation of the goods were questioned due to lack of expert testing and discrepancies in the description. The Tribunal later allowed testing of samples, which ultimately confirmed the goods as PVC, not leather belts.

5. The valuation of the goods was based on the assumption that they were leather belts, leading to an enhancement of the value. However, the subsequent confirmation of the goods as PVC leather belts invalidated this valuation.

6. Due to delays in the adjudication order, the appellant surrendered the goods, impacting the question of valuation and penalty imposition.

7. The penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 5,000 considering the violations related to mis-declaration of goods and value, with the ITC angle being the only surviving issue for penalty imposition.

8. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order by setting aside the value determination and reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant.