2017 (2) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Rotavapor R-220 - Held that - Finding that the goods is of specific description under CTH 8419, classification under this heading confirmed. Valuation - Held that - it is common sense that with the change in the classification, the valuation is bound to be disturbed - the goods valued at ₹ 27,09,723/- and considering 10% value thereof as normal profit, he imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 2,70,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. That also does not warrant any interference. Imposition of penalty - Held that - when the confiscation remained untouched, Section 112(a) penalty is bound to flow. Considering the value of the goods and extent of Revenue loss made by the appellant, penalty is also confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods, Valuation, Redemption fine, Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962

Classification of goods: The appellant contested the classification made by the Revenue, arguing it was improper and that the valuation was also incorrect. The adjudication order confirmed the classification under CTH 8419 based on the specific description of the goods as a "Rotavapor R-220." The appellant failed to provide any logical reason to challenge the classification, and thus, the classification remained unchanged.

Valuation: The Tribunal acknowledged that a change in classification would impact the valuation of the goods. The authority determined the value of the goods at &8377; 27,09,723/- and imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 2,70,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering 10% of the value as normal profit. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this valuation and fine imposed.

Redemption fine: The redemption fine of &8377; 2,70,000/- imposed by the authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld by the Tribunal as appropriate, considering the valuation of the goods and the normal profit percentage applied.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962: Since the confiscation of goods was not overturned, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty of &8377; 1 lac under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was deemed necessary based on the value of the goods and the revenue loss incurred by the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the penalty along with the other decisions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after reviewing the classification, valuation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decisions made by the authority regarding the classification, valuation, and penalties were found to be appropriate and in accordance with the law, leading to the rejection of the appellant's grievance.