1991 (7) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, intention to evade duty, penalty imposition, valuation dispute

Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The appeal involved a case where the appellants imported Brass Scrap instead of Brass Dross as declared in the documents. The Collector of Customs found that the goods were misdeclared, leading to an attempt to evade duty. The appellants argued that they had ordered only Brass Dross, and the mistake was on the supplier's part. The appellants took precautions to ensure the correct goods were supplied, and the suppliers admitted the mistake and compensated the appellants. The Tribunal considered the evidence and held that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade duty, as they were not involved in the misdeclaration. The Department's argument that the supplier had a history of misdeclaration was not sufficient to penalize the appellants without their connivance. The Tribunal concluded that confiscation, fine, and penalty were not justified in this case.

Intention to Evade Duty and Penalty Imposition:
The Department contended that the misdeclaration was deliberate to evade duty, as Brass Scrap is costlier than Brass Dross. They argued that the appellants should be penalized for importing high-priced goods under false pretenses. The appellants, however, provided evidence showing the mistake was the supplier's, and they were not involved in the misdeclaration. The Tribunal found that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade duty, as evidenced by the supplier's admission of the mistake and compensation provided. They held that penal action was not justified in this case, citing previous judgments and the absence of mens rea on the part of the appellants.

Valuation Dispute:
Regarding the valuation of the goods, the appellants argued that the Collector erred in using the invoice value for assessment, as it represented Brass Dross, while the prevailing rate for Brass Scrap was lower. The Department maintained that the declared value should be considered the 'means value,' citing previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal noted that the valuation dispute was not raised earlier and remanded the matter to the Collector for reevaluation. The Collector was directed to redetermine the value after allowing the appellants to present additional evidence, if any, on the issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by ruling in favor of the appellants on the misdeclaration issue, finding no intention to evade duty. They set aside the confiscation, fine, and penalty. The matter was remanded to the Collector for reevaluation of the valuation dispute.