1999 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of assessable value.
2. Confiscation of goods.
3. Violation of para 118(2) of the Handbook of Import Export Procedures.
4. Imposition of redemption fine.
5. Imposition of penalties on M/s. AMN India, M/s. Zoro Garments, M/s. Oceanic Exports, and M/s. India Agencies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Assessable Value:
The Department relied on private price lists of Hongkong suppliers recovered from M/s. India Agencies. Contemporaneous imports during the material period were noted, and the practice of preparing proforma invoices before opening a letter of credit was highlighted. The Appellants produced invoices for similar goods, but the Adjudicating Authority pointed out that these invoices indicated incomplete machines, making them incomparable to the Department's invoices. The letters about discounts did not cover any imports except one machine, for which the benefit was already given. Thus, the Department successfully made a case for enhancement of the assessable value, and the order for enhancement was upheld.

2. Confiscation of Goods:
The goods were found to be mis-declared in value with the intention to evade duty, making them liable for confiscation. This reason alone justified the confiscation, and the order for confiscation was upheld.

3. Violation of Para 118(2) of the Handbook of Import Export Procedures:
Even without delving into the merits of this invocation, the goods were found liable for confiscation due to mis-declaration. Thus, the confiscation was upheld regardless of the alleged violation of para 118(2).

4. Imposition of Redemption Fine:
After examining the papers and the value of the goods, the redemption fine was deemed reasonable and upheld.

5. Imposition of Penalties:
- M/s. AMN India and M/s. Oceanic Exports: The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each was considered nominal and upheld.
- M/s. India Agencies: It was noted that Mr. Kapoor, not M/s. India Agencies, was given the power of attorney and was responsible for signing the declarations in the Bills of Entry. Therefore, the penalty on M/s. India Agencies was not sustainable and was set aside.

Conclusion:
Except for the modification regarding the penalty on M/s. India Agencies, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.