2014 (3) TMI 601 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Import of Malaysian Round Logs - Mis declaration of quantity of goods - Valuation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Demand of differential duty - Held that - Revenue has failed to prove that the respondent has paid any amount over and above the transaction value. Therefore, although there is an excess quantity of the goods but transaction value is not affected, therefore that transaction value is accepted. Accordingly question of demand of differential duty does not arise. Further, we find that as quantity of goods have been misdeclared by the respondents, therefore goods are liable for confiscation. As in the impugned order the learned Commissioner did not confiscate the goods, we hold that goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, the impugned goods are confiscated. As goods are not prohibited goods, therefore, they are allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. As the goods have been cleared after adjudication, therefore we direct the respondent to pay the redemption fine - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against non-confiscation of imported goods and non-demand of duty.
2. Excess quantity of goods imported.
3. Demand for differential duty.
4. Confiscation of goods.
5. Penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order regarding the non-confiscation of goods imported by the respondents and the absence of a demand for duty. The respondents imported Malaysian Round Logs with an excess quantity of around 288CBM. The goods were seized, and a show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner accepted the transaction value declared by the respondents as no additional payment was made to the foreign supplier. The differential duty for the excess quantity was minimal compared to the total value of goods imported. The Commissioner did not confiscate the goods but imposed a penalty on the respondents. The Revenue appealed for the demand of differential duty and confiscation of the goods.

2. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to establish that the respondents paid an amount over and above the transaction value. Despite the misdeclaration of the quantity of goods, the transaction value remained unaffected. Therefore, the question of demanding a differential duty did not arise. However, due to the misdeclaration of the quantity, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation. The Tribunal held that since the Commissioner did not order confiscation in the impugned order, the goods should be confiscated. The goods, not being prohibited, could be redeemed upon payment of a redemption fine. The respondents were directed to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 as the goods had been cleared post-adjudication.

3. The appeal was disposed of with the terms of confiscation, redemption fine, and clearance of the goods. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods due to misdeclaration, allowing redemption upon payment of the specified fine.